Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N the Water Pub.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-5172.,No. 02-5232.,No. 02-5165.,No. 02-5233.,No. 02-5229.,No. 02-5167.,No. 02-5174.,No. 02-5230.,No. 02-5234.,No. 02-5171.,No. 02-5166.,No. 02-5155.,No. 02-5227.,No. 02-5228.,No. 02-5169.,No. 02-5173.,No. 02-5170.,No. 02-5231.,No. 02-5168.,02-5165.,02-5166.,02-5167.,02-5168.,02-5169.,02-5170.,02-5171.,02-5172.,02-5173.,02-5174.,02-5155.,02-5227.,02-5228.,02-5229.,02-5230.,02-5231.,02-5232.,02-5233.,02-5234. |
| Citation | 327 F.3d 472 |
| Parties | BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STILL N THE WATER PUBLISHING, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DM Records, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Richard S. Busch (argued and briefed), D'Lesli M. Davis (briefed), Virginia F. Flack (briefed), King & Ballow, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Mary Ellen Morris (briefed), Miller & Martin, Nashville, TN, Henry J. Fasthoff IV (Argued and briefed), Stumpf, Craddock, Massey & Pulman, Houston, TX, Anne C. Martin, Elena J. Xoinis (briefed), Dodson, Parker, Dinkins & Behm, Nashville, TN, Karl M. Braun (briefed), Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Nashville, TN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KEITH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; KATZ, District Judge.*
Plaintiffs-Appellants Bridgeport Music, Inc., Southfield Music, Inc., Westbound Records, Inc., and Nine Records, Inc. (collectively "Bridgeport") appeal the district court's dismissal of eleven individual actions for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants-Appellees N-the-Water Publishing, Inc., individually and d/b/a Still N the Water Publishing (collectively "NTW").1 Bridgeport also appeals the dismissal of eight individual actions filed against Defendants-Appellees DM Records, Inc., individually and a/s/t Bellmark Records (collectively "DM"). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's order granting NTW's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but REVERSE the ruling as to DM and REMAND for further findings.
This action is one of several hundred filed by Appellants against entities and/or individuals associated with the "rap" or "hip-hop" music industry. Appellants are all Michigan corporations engaged in, inter alia, music publishing, recording and distributing sound recordings, and other forms of commercial exploitation of musical copyrights. On May 4, 2001, Appellants filed suit alleging infringement upon their copyrights in several sound recordings and musical compositions through "sampling" of Appellants' recordings and/or compositions in subsequent recordings, compositions, and performances.2 The original complaint, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music, 202 F.R.D. 229 (M.D.Tenn.2001), asserted nearly 500 claims against approximately 800 defendants seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for infringement and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq. On July 25, 2001 the district court severed the case by count into 476 cases, resulting in the filing of numerous amended complaints based on different allegedly infringing musical compositions and/or sound recordings.3
On September 28, 2001 Appellants filed an amended complaint naming Appellee DM as a defendant in eight of the newly severed cases.4 On October 1, 2001, Appellants filed an amended complaint naming Appellee NTW as a defendant in eleven of the newly severed cases.5
NTW is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. As a music publisher, NTW's business consists primarily of owning and exploiting musical compositions through mechanical licensing.6 Appellants assert that NTW has infringed on their musical composition copyrights by licensing infringing works, as well as by sampling certain protected compositions and distributing the infringing compositions and sound recordings in Tennessee and elsewhere.
DM is a family-owned and operated independent record company located in Florida that produces and distributes sound recordings. It acquires copyrights, distributes sound recordings, and engages in publishing, administration of copyrights, and licensing. Appellants assert that DM has infringed on their copyrights by sampling certain protected compositions and distributing the infringing compositions and sound recordings in Tennessee and elsewhere.
On July 9, 2001, NTW moved to dismiss all eleven actions asserted against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue and renewed the motion post-severance. On October 22, 2001, DM moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court granted the parties a limited time to conduct jurisdictional discovery but did not conduct a hearing on either NTW or DM's motions to dismiss.
In January 2002 the district court granted NTW's motion and between January 18 and January 29 entered dismissal orders in the 11 NTW actions for lack of personal jurisdiction. On January 29, 2002, the district court granted DM's motion and dismissed the eight actions for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court therefore denied as moot the motions to dismiss for improper venue and failure to state a claim. The district court denied Appellants' subsequent motion for reconsideration and entered final judgment on the claims asserted against DM and NTW pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). On February 15, 2002, Bridgeport filed suit against NTW in Houston, Texas, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. N-The-Water Publishing, Inc., No. 02-0585 (S.D. Tex. filed Feb. 15, 2002), based primarily on the same facts alleged in the instant action.
"The decision to exercise personal jurisdiction is a question of law based on the Due Process Clause of the Constitution." Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 528 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). As a question of law, this Court reviews de novo the district court's determination as to personal jurisdiction. See id.
"Where a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case stems from the existence of a federal question, personal jurisdiction over a defendant exists `if the defendant is amenable to service of process under the [forum] state's long-arm statute and if the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not deny the defendant[] due process.'" Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). Where the state long-arm statute extends to the limits of the due process clause, the two inquiries are merged and the court need only determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction violates constitutional due process. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tryg Int'l Ins. Co., Ltd., 91 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir.1996). As "[t]he Tennessee long-arm statute has been interpreted as coterminous with the limits on personal jurisdiction imposed by the due process clause,"7 Payne v. Motorists' Mut. Ins. Cos., 4 F.3d 452, 454 (6th Cir.1993), we address only whether exercising personal jurisdiction over Appellees is consistent with federal due process requirements.
"Personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific, depending upon the nature of the contacts that the defendant has with the forum state." Bird, 289 F.3d at 873. In the instant action, the district court ruled as to both general and specific jurisdiction, finding both lacking against DM and NTW. On appeal, Bridgeport challenges the district court's findings only as to specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction is proper over Appellees only if their contact with Tennessee satisfies the three-part test established in Southern Machine Company v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.:
First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequence caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.
401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968).
In the instant action, the district court concluded that neither NTW nor DM had purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in or causing a consequence in the forum state and therefore found personal jurisdiction lacking over both NTW and DM. Having made that determination, the district court did not make findings as to the remaining two elements of the Mohasco test. On appeal, the parties chiefly dispute the district court's purposeful availment findings, but also present arguments as to the remaining Mohasco factors. However, because the district court did not address these factors, and because the appellate record does not lend itself to a ruling on these factors as to each of the 18 individual actions before the Court, we address only the district court's purposeful availment determination.
The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, and we therefore review the pleadings and other documentary evidence in a light most favorable to Bridgeport without considering Appellees' controverting assertions. See Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718, 721 (6th Cir.2000). "`Dismissal in this procedural posture is proper only if all the specific facts which the plaintiff ... alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction.'" Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., 106 F.3d 147, 149 (6th Cir.1997) (quoting Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir.1991)). As plaintiff, Bridgeport bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, see Tobin, 993 F.2d at 543, but need only made a prima facie showing. See Calphalon, 228 F.3d at 721.
Under the first prong of the Mohasco test, Appellants must establish that Appellees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.
...or marketed the product through a distributor who agreed to serve as the sales agent in Virginia"); Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Pub. , 327 F.3d 472, 484 n.11 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of all actions against nonresident defendant NTW under stream of commerce plus a......
-
Apex Tool Grp., LLC v. Dmtco, LLC
...Ohio 2012), citing Palnik v. Westlake Entn't, Inc., 344 F. Appx. 249, 252 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Bridgeport Music v. Still N The Water Publ'g, 327 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2003). As previously stated, in diversity cases, federal courts apply the law of the forum state. This applies to mak......
-
Ajuba Int'l, L.L.C. v. Saharia
...marks and citation omitted)). This conduct undeniably connects Defendants with Michigan. See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Pub., 327 F.3d 472, 478–479 (6th Cir.2003) (“The emphasis in the purposeful availment inquiry is whether the defendant has engaged in some overt actions c......
-
Branstetter v. Holland Am. Line N.V.
...exercising personal jurisdiction over HAL is consistent with federal due process requirements. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N the Water Publ'g, 327 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2003). The Due Process Clause requires that a non-resident defendant have at least "certain minimum contacts with [t......
-
This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
...contacts. 133 _______________________________________________________ 129 See, e.g. , Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ’g, 327 F.3d 472, 479–80 (6th Cir. 2003) (following Justice O’Connor’s stream of commerce plus test); Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939, 945–4......
-
Table of cases
...215 Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., In re, 248 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2001), 269 Bridgeport Music v. Still N The Water Publ’g, 327 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2003), 96 Bridgestone/Firestone ATX II & Wilderness Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 205 F.R.D. 503 (S.D. Ind. 2001), 247 Bridgestone/F......
-
Jurisdiction and Choice of law Issues in the Indirect Purchaser action
...prices in a particular forum), it creates the requisite minimum contacts to satisfy 31 . Bridgeport Music v. Still N The Water Publ’g, 327 F.3d 472, 479 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987) (O’Connor, J., plurality op.)). 32 . Asahi, 48......
-
Synchronizing Copyright and Technology: A New Paradigm for Sync Rights.
...Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 579 n.3 (6th Cir. 2007); Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ'g, 327 F.3d 472, 481 n.8 (6th Cir. 2003); House of Bryant Publ'ns, LLC v. A & E Television Networks, No. 3:09-0502, 2009 WL 3673055 at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Oc......