Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc.

Decision Date24 August 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 12–cv–00954–AW.
Citation888 F.Supp.2d 691
PartiesMETROPOLITAN REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HOME REALTY NETWORK, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Margaret Aldona Esquenet, Whitney Devin Cooke, Washington, DC, John T. Westermeier, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett and Dunner LLP, Reston, VA, for Plaintiff.

Richard Scott Toikka, L. Peter Farkas, Farkas & Toikka LLP, Washington, DC, Christopher Ralph Miller, American Home Realty Network Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (MRIS) brings this action against Defendants Jonathan J. Cardella (“Cardella”) and American Home Realty Network, Inc. (AHRN). The following motions are pending before the Court: (1) Cardella's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 23; (2) AHRN's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 24; (3) MRIS's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Defendants' Replies in Support of their Motions to Dismiss, Doc. No. 30; and (4) MRIS's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 16. The Court has reviewed the motion papers and finds no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D.Md.2011).

For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS Cardella's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, DENIES AHRN's Motion to Dismiss, DENIES as moot MRIS's Motion for Leave, and GRANTS MRIS's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Complaint and the parties' briefs and attached exhibits. Plaintiff MRIS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. MRIS provides what is known in the real estate industry as “multiple listing services” (“MLS”). Specifically, MRIS facilitates real estate transactions in the mid-Atlantic region by operating and maintaining an automated database consisting of compiled property listings and related informational content (the “MRIS Database”). To use the database, real estate brokers and agents are required to execute a subscription agreement. Subscribers agree to upload their real estate listings to the MRIS Database and to assign to MRIS the copyrights in each photograph included in those listings. Upon payment to MRIS and subject to terms and conditions, subscribers are granted access to all the real estate listings in the MRIS Database and the right to display those listings on their own websites via a licensed data feed. MRIS oversees the use and content of the listings to ensure that subscribers are complying with MRIS's rules and regulations and information quality standards. In addition to the services provided to subscribers, MRIS makes limited content available to consumers through a free website, www. homesdatabase. com.

MRIS files its claims of copyright ownership in the MRIS Database with the U.S. Copyright Office (Copyright Office) each quarter, in accord with the registration procedures applicable to automated databases. The copyright registrations for the MRIS Database list “text” and “photographs” as pre-existing material and the basis of the copyright claims. To protect its intellectual property, MRIS affixes its mark and copyright notice— i.e., “© 2012 MRIS—to photographs in the MRIS Database.

Defendant AHRN is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant Cardella is the Chief Executive Officer of AHRN. AHRN is a registered California real estate broker with nine employees. AHRN owns and operates the website NeighborCity.com, a national real estate search engine and provider of real estate agent ratings and rankings. The data displayed on NeighborCity.com comes from real estate brokers and agents, county tax assessors' offices and other public records, and through foreclosure data providers and FSBO (“For Sale by Owner”) aggregators. The website also incorporates school data and maps from third party providers. NeighborCity.com derives its own performance metrics, statistics, and rankings for about one million real estate agents throughout the country. Users of the NeighborCity.com website can find nationwide real estate listings using search parameters such as geographic region and price range. If users find a real estate agent or a property that interests them, NeighborCity.com connects the user with the local agent of choice or a recommended agent for the requested property. NeighborCity.com is compensated for its agent matching and referral services if the lead turns into a sale.

AHRN has not acquired a license or permission from MRIS to reproduce, display, or otherwise use the MRIS Database. However, NeighborCity.com has displayed Maryland real estate listings containing photographs from the MRIS Database. On November 18, 2011, MRIS sent a letter to AHRN putting it on notice of the alleged copyright infringement and demanding cessation of all infringing activities. AHRN responded on December 21, 2011 by suggesting that the parties develop a “custom license” whereby AHRN could continue to use the listing data to which MRIS claimed a proprietary interest. MRIS rejected AHRN's suggestion on January 26, 2012.

On March 28, 2012 MRIS filed suit in this Court alleging direct copyright infringement against AHRN for the reproduction, public display, and creation of derivative works from the copyrighted MRIS Database, inducement of copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement against AHRN, vicarious copyright infringement against AHRN and Cardella, false designation and other claims under the Lanham Act against AHRN, and tortious conversion and unjust enrichment against AHRN. On April 4, 2012 MRIS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss on May 11, 2012 for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim. Following briefing on the motions to dismiss, MRIS filed a motion for leave to file a surreply on June 19, 2012.

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTIONA. Standard of Review

When a court's power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is properly challenged by a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “the jurisdictional question is to be resolved by the judge, with the burden on the plaintiff ultimately to prove grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir.2003) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59–60 (4th Cir.1993)). If the existence of jurisdiction turns on disputed factual questions the court may resolve the motion on the basis of an evidentiary hearing. See Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir.1989). However, if the court rules on the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing and relies solely on the basis of the pleadings, allegations in the complaint, motion papers, affidavits, and discovery materials, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.” Screen v. Equifax Info. Sys., LLC, 303 F.Supp.2d 685, 688 (D.Md.2004) (quoting Carefirst of Md., 334 F.3d at 396);see also CoStar Realty Info., Inc. v. Field, 612 F.Supp.2d 660, 667 (D.Md.2009). “In deciding whether the plaintiff has made the requisite showing, the court must take all disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Carefirst of Md., 334 F.3d at 396.

B. Analysis

A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if: (1) jurisdiction is authorized under the long-arm statute of the forum state; and (2) the assertion of jurisdiction comports with Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements. See Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir.2001). Maryland courts have consistently held that Maryland's long-arm statute is co-extensive with the scope of jurisdiction permitted by the Due Process Clause. See Carefirst of Md., 334 F.3d at 396 (citing Mohamed v. Michael, 279 Md. 653, 370 A.2d 551, 553 (1977)). Although the statutory and constitutional inquiries merge, the Court must address both elements in the personal jurisdiction analysis. See Dring v. Sullivan, 423 F.Supp.2d 540, 545 (D.Md.2006) (citing Mackey v. Compass Mktg., Inc., 391 Md. 117, 892 A.2d 479, 493 n. 6 (2006)).

The Maryland long-arm statute limits specific jurisdiction to cases where the cause of action “aris[es] from any act enumerated” in the statute itself. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6–103(a). Thus, a plaintiff must “identify a specific Maryland statutory provision authorizing jurisdiction.” Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc. v. Playmore, Inc., 158 F.Supp.2d 649, 652 (D.Md.2001). In this case, MRIS argues that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to sections 6–103(b)(1) and 6–103(b)(4) of the Maryland long-arm statute.

Section 6–103(b)(1) authorizes jurisdiction when a person [t]ransacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the state.” Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6–103(b)(1). “Transacting business pursuant to subsection (b)(1) ‘requires actions that culminate in purposeful activity within the state.’ Capital Source Fin., LLC v. Delco Oil, Inc., 520 F.Supp.2d 684, 689 (D.Md.2007) (quoting Bahn v. Chi. Motor Club Ins. Co., 98 Md.App. 559, 634 A.2d 63, 67 (Md.1993)). Subsection (b)(1) does not require the defendant to have been present physically in Maryland.” Capital Source Fin., LLC, 520 F.Supp.2d at 689 (citations omitted). In Bahn, for example, the court found that the nonresident defendant “transacted business” within the meaning of section 6–103(b)(1) because it mailed notices to the Maryland plaintiffs, contracted with the Maryland plaintiffs, and received payments from Maryland. 634 A.2d at 67–68.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Topline Solutions, Inc. v. Sandler Sys., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • May 8, 2017
    ...Publications., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)); accord Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 691, 709 (D. Md. 2012), aff'd, 722 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2013). To show ownership of a valid copyright, a plaint......
  • Clancy v. Jack Ryan Enters., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • February 10, 2021
    ...of copyright must "manifest an intention to transfer the right to another person"); Metropolitan Regional Info. Syst., Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, 888 F. Supp. 2d 691, 708 (D. Md. 2012) (assignment of copyright must "reveal clear and unequivocal intent to transfer rights"), aff'd,......
  • Hoge v. Schmalfeldt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • July 1, 2014
    ...Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)); accord Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 691, 709 (D. Md. 2012), aff'd, 722 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2013). In order to show ownership of a valid copyright, a plaintiff must supply "proof of......
  • Craigslist Inc. v. 3taps Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 30, 2013
    ...abrogated in part on other grounds by Reed Elsevier, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S.Ct. 1237;Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc. (MRIS), 888 F.Supp.2d 691, 706 (D.Md.2012); Pac. Stock, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. Civ. 11–00423 SOM/BMK, 2012 WL 93182, at *4 (D.Haw. Jan. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Second Edition
    • December 6, 2020
    ...Home Entm’t, 342 F.3d 191, 206 (3d Cir. 2003), as amended (Sept. 19, 2003) (same); Metro. Reg’l Info. Sys. v. Am. Home Realty Network, 888 F. Supp. 2d 691, 711 (D. Md.), modified on clarification , 904 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2012), aff’d , 722 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2013), and aff’d , 722 F.3d......
  • B. [§ 1.42] Personal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Pleading Causes of Action in Maryland (MSBA) (2022 Ed.) Chapter 1 Fundamental Concepts and Mechanics
    • Invalid date
    ...in which that website might be accessed." In Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., 888 F. Supp.2d 691, 702 (D. Md. 2012), Judge Williams distinguished Allcarrier and held the defendant subject to personal jurisdiction because that defendant's......
  • Copyright as Contract
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 22-2, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Donnelley Information Pub'g Inc., 933 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1991); Metro. Reg'l Info. Systems, Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D. Md. 2012).64. See Mazzone, CopyFraud, supra note 45, at 1087—89 (suggesting the possibility). 65. Guido Calabresi & Douglas Melamed,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT