Brotman v. State Gov't Leadership Found., of Columbia Non-Profit Corp., 3:16-CV-712-HBG
| Decision Date | 16 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:16-CV-712-HBG,3:16-CV-712-HBG |
| Parties | STUART N. BROTMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties, for all further proceedings, including entry of judgment [Doc. 14].
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Counterclaim [Doc. 31] ("Motion to Dismiss") and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 35]. The Motions are ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, for the reasons further explained below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 31] is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED [Doc. 35].
The Court observes that the facts in this case are relatively straightforward. The parties entered into a written agreement wherein Plaintiff would produce a written report and Defendant would pay Plaintiff for his work. Plaintiff produced the written report, and Defendant paid Plaintiff for his work. Later, Defendant claimed that there were issues with Plaintiff's written report, and Defendant requested that its money be returned. The parties have filed multiple claims against one another and several dispositive motions. The Court will summarize the history of this case, including the allegations as presented in the pleadings.
The original Complaint [Doc. 1] in this matter was filed on December 29, 2016. In summary, Plaintiff registered a written work, State Sovereignty Limits on the Federal Power of Preemption: The Federal Communications Commission's Legal Boundaries Under the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, ("Final Report") with the United States Copyright Office. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 3]. Plaintiff's Final Report was produced from Defendant's funds based on an agreement between the parties. [Id.]. Defendant expressed dissatisfaction with Plaintiff's work, claiming a number of words, estimated at approximately 100 words of a 77,972 word document, constitutes significant plagiarism. [Id. at ¶ 13]. Plaintiff attached the terms, funding, engagement agreement ("Agreement") as Exhibit A to the Complaint. [Doc. 1-3]. In the Complaint, Plaintiff explained that his action was a Declaratory Judgment action under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. [Id. at ¶ 16].
On April 14, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaims [Doc. 5]. With respect to its Counterclaims, Defendant states that on March 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued a decision preempting North Carolina and Tennessee state laws that limit the expansion of municipal broadband systems beyond their original geographical limits. [Doc. 5 at ¶ 1]. Defendant commissioned Dr. Ford to complete a study on the economic aspects of the issue and commissioned Plaintiff to complete a study on the legal aspects of the issue. [Id. at ¶ 6]. The Counterclaims state that on July 14, 2015, the parties entered into the Agreement. [Id. at ¶ 8]. Plaintiff was supposed to turn in a written report that would be coordinated with Dr. Ford's report, which would then be turned into a larger report for distribution by Defendant. [Id. at ¶ 10]. The parties agreed that Defendant would pay Plaintiff a total sum of $115,000.00. [Id. at ¶ 11].
On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff delivered a written report ("Initial Report") to Defendant. [Id. at ¶ 13, Ex. 1]. Dr. Ford reviewed Plaintiff's Initial Report in order to coordinate its inclusion into his (Dr. Ford's) work. [Id. at ¶ 14]. On Dr. Ford's review, however, it became clear that the majority of the Initial Report was plagiarized from several sources, including the work of Lawrence Spiwak, portions of U.S. Advisory Commission on Inter-Governmental A1 Relations, Study A-121, and a brief by the Department of Justice. [Id. at ¶¶ 14-15]. Defendant alerted Plaintiff to the plagiarism in the Initial Report on a conference call on or about October 16, 2015, and Defendant asked Plaintiff to re-write the report or create original work product that Defendant could use. [Id. at ¶ 17]. Plaintiff agreed to revise the Initial Report accordingly. [Id.].
Defendant's Counterclaims state that in or around November 2015, Plaintiff submitted the Final Report, but Defendant determined that significant portions of the Final Report were plagiarized. [Id. at ¶¶ 18-19, Ex. 4]. The Counterclaims allege that the Final Report was just as unusable as the Initial Report. [Id. at ¶ 19]. Defendant advised Plaintiff of the same. [Id. at ¶ 22]. Defendant states that it would have suffered great harm to its reputation, fundraising, and future similar endeavors if it were to have published Plaintiff's plagiarized report. [Id.]. The Counterclaims submit that Plaintiff failed to deliver, as promised in the Agreement, and that Defendant paid Plaintiff $115,000 for recycled work product that in no way reflected the comprehensive and authoritative research and analysis Plaintiff advertised. [Id. at ¶ 23].
Defendant alleges that it has attempted to resolve the dispute with Plaintiff to recover the $115,000, but Plaintiff refuses to repay Defendant. [Id. at ¶ 24]. The Counterclaims state that according to Plaintiff's Complaint, he apparently registered his plagiarized work with the Copyright Office in June 2016, after Defendant made multiple attempts to resolve the dispute. [Id.] The Counterclaims allege breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and alter ego. [Id. at ¶¶ 25- 44].
Subsequently, both parties filed dispositive motions. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and Plaintiff moved to dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims. On February 17, 2018, the Court issued a ruling on the parties' dispositive motions. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment action and Defendant's alter ego claim. [Doc. 29].
On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims and asserted his own Counterclaims. [Doc. 30]. In his Counterclaims, Plaintiff alleges that he delivered the work product, and almost one year after the delivery of a revised report to Defendant, Defendant demanded its money back. [Id. at ¶ 1]. Plaintiff alleges that in this interim period, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that negated the need for Plaintiff's work for Defendant's purpose. [Id.].
Plaintiff's Counterclaims state that on July 14, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the Agreement. [Id. at ¶ 6]. The Agreement had five distinct elements, which included researching and analyzing different areas, reviewing Supreme Court precedents, and producing a written report coordinated with Dr. Ford for inclusion into a larger report. [Id. at ¶ 7]. In exchange for the work under the Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $115,000 in two installments. [Id. at ¶ 10]. On July 15, 2015, Defendant wired the first installment of $57,500 to Plaintiff. [Id. at ¶ 11].
Plaintiff's Counterclaims allege that he submitted the report to Defendant on September 4, 2015. [Id. at ¶ 22]. Upon Plaintiff's request, the balance of the payment was transferred to him on September 11, 2015, which was before the time that the Agreement specified that the balance would need to be paid. [Id. at ¶¶ 14-15]. Defendant's Policy and Issue Advocacy Director, Micah Ketchel ("Ketchel"), indicated via email that he "really enjoyed diving into it and learned a great deal." [Id. at ¶ 16].
On October 5, 2015, Ketchel again expressed satisfaction with Plaintiff's work based on Defendant's complete review of the report. [Id. at ¶ 17]. Ketchel contacted Plaintiff again on October 9, 2015, to assess Plaintiff's interest in penning a piece that would be pitched to major outlets, including Forbes or the Wall Street Journal. [Id. at ¶ 19]. Plaintiff states that at some point, he was contacted by a third party, who is not a party of the Agreement, indicating that Defendant already had provided him/her a copy of the draft report. [Id. at ¶ 21]. Plaintiff alleges that the Agreement provides that the terms thereof shall be kept confidential by the parties and may not be disclosed to any third party. [Id.].
The Counterclaims state that on October 16, 2015, Plaintiff spoke to Ketchel and Matt Walker, a representative with Defendant, and for the first time, they indicated that they had questions regarding the originality of Plaintiff's report. [Id. at ¶ 22]. Plaintiff indicated that any specific items they raised could be addressed in a revision, and Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide written details so that a revision could be undertaken. [Id. at ¶ 23]. Plaintiff also requested on the telephone call that Defendant provide him with a copy of Dr. Ford's draft report, which was part of the coordination process stipulated to in the Agreement. [Id. at ¶ 24]. A copy of Dr. Ford's report was never provided to Plaintiff. [Id.].
Defendant requested that Plaintiff revise the report and utilize a software program called Grammarly to detect any citation errors or omissions. [Id. at ¶ 25]. During this revision process, Plaintiff's computer was hacked, which resulted in a corruption of the electronic file of the draft report. [Id. at ¶ 26]. Plaintiff immediately notified Defendant of the issue and stated that the only real solution would be to have the revised report prepared by re-inputting the original version, which had been preserved in hard-copy format. [Id. at ¶ 27]. Plaintiff alleges that without explanation, Defendant notified the third party (the same third party referenced above), and the third party offered to provide the preserved hard-copy format to Plaintiff. [Id.].
Later, on November 6, 2015, a memorandum ("Memorandum") was provided to Defendant, which contained details...
To continue reading
Request your trial