Oakley v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-3683-RWS |
| Parties | REGINALD OAKLEY, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., CREATESPACE.COM, KINDLE.COM, PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE, AUTHOR SOLUTIONS LLC, and JOHN DOE THIRD-PARTY SELLERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
On October 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman granted Plaintiff Reginald Oakley leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. It is now before the Court for a frivolity determination. Also before the Court are Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss [5], Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed and to Appoint Counsel [6], and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed to Grant Rights to Relatives [7]. After reviewing the record, the Court enters the following Order.
Plaintiff is an author and the owner of Oakley Publishing and Patents LLC. (Compl., Dkt. [3] ¶ 4.) He has self-published two books, Murder After Super Bowl XXXIV (U.S. Copyright No. TX 8-224-209), and Memories of Murder: To Hell and Back (U.S. Copyright No. TX 8-131-618). (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff's books are printed via print-on-demand ("POD"), which is a "printing technology and business process" where an author's books are printed only to satisfy specific orders. (Id. ¶ 14.) Both books provide Plaintiff's own account of a double murder that took place after Super Bowl XXXIV. (Id. ¶ 15.) Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") "is the world's largest online retailer" and owns Defendants Createspace.com ("Createspace") and Kindle.com ("Kindle"). (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Penguin Random House ("Penguin") sells books through Amazon's online bookstore and owns Defendant Author Solutions LLC ("Author Solutions"). (Id. ¶ 6.) Broadly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws and infringed his copyrights while offering his books for sale online.
According to Plaintiff, in 2005, Amazon entered a new market by purchasing BookSurge and other POD publishing companies. (Id. ¶ 25.)Penguin also entered the POD market by purchasing Author Solutions. (Id.) No later than February of 2008, Amazon decided it would only sell POD books directly to consumers if those books were printed using BookSurge. (Id. ¶ 27.) In 2009, Plaintiff self-published Murder After Super Bowl XXXIV through Amazon's POD company Createspace. (Id. ¶ 29.) And in 2010, Plaintiff self-published Memories of Murder: To Hell and Back using Penguin's POD company Author Solutions. (Id.) Later in 2010, Plaintiff stopped the printing and sale of both books as less than 50 copies of each were sold. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that Amazon, Createspace, Penguin, and Author Solutions deceived him and other POD authors "by falsely claiming to have given Plaintiff 'Free' ISBN numbers for [his two copyrighted books, and] permanently 'tying' the 'Free' ISBN numbers to Plaintiff's books." (Id. ¶ 30.) That, in turn, allowed those Defendants to later maintain ownership of the "free" ISBN numbers to control Plaintiff's books in the online book markets. (Id.)
Plaintiff further alleges that, in 2010, Plaintiff stopped the printing and sale of books through Amazon, Kindle, and Createspace, and cancelled his contract with Penguin and Author Solutions because his unedited books wereleaked online. (Id. ¶ 32.) Nonetheless, third-party sellers on Defendants' websites claimed to have more used copies of Plaintiff's books than the amount initially sold according to Amazon's royalty report. (Id. ¶ 33.)
Sometime later, Penguin and Author Solutions allegedly emailed Plaintiff a corrupt and altered copy of his own book, Memories of Murder: To Hell and Back. (Id. ¶ 34.) Then, in 2011, Plaintiff claims that Defendants used software to circumvent his web browser and to manipulate and collect Plaintiff's personal information. (Id. ¶ 35.) Defendants then created a portal on Amazon's webpage for Plaintiff's books by attaching excerpts of an unrelated book. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff seems to allege that those excerpts contained phrases that were threatening to Plaintiff personally. (Id.)
In 2012, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants took control of his books on Amazon's website by "tying" them together and aggressively marketing them without his permission. (Id. ¶ 37.) Defendants also allegedly violated Plaintiff's copyrights by enabling the "Look Inside" feature on his books without his permission. (Id. ¶ 38.) In 2016, Plaintiff's books were unattached from the allegedly threatening excerpts and removed from Amazon's website. (Id. ¶ 45.)
Based on the allegations above, Plaintiff brings four causes of action: one count for illegal tying in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Count I); two counts of copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, one for infringement of Murder After Super Bowl XXXIV (U.S. Copyright No. TX 8-224-209) (Count II) and another for infringement of Memories of Murder: To Hell and Back (U.S. Copyright No. TX 8-131-618) (Count III); and one count for unfair and deceptive trade practices under 15 U.S.C. § 45 (Count IV).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." While this pleading standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," mere labels and conclusions or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficientfactual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is plausible on its face when the plaintiff pleads factual content necessary for the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. Id.
"At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). However, the same does not apply to legal conclusions set forth in the complaint. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. Furthermore, the court does not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his "pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). "This leniency, however, does not require or allow courts to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." Thomas v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union, 393 F. App'x 635, 637 (11th Cir. 2010).
Amazon moves to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading requirements, that the claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations, or that Plaintiff lacks standing or a private cause of action. Plaintiff has filed no response to Amazon's motion, so the Court deems it unopposed. See LR 7.1(B), NDGa ("Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion."). Still, the Court will consider Amazon's arguments on the merits.
In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' practices of tying ISBN numbers to his books and tying printing services to sales in the online book market unreasonably restrain the trade of Plaintiff's books as well as his company. (Compl., Dkt. [3] ¶¶ 47-49.) Plaintiff appears to bring this claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1, which is part of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and says that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1. While illegal tying arrangements are actionable under 15 U.S.C. § 1, see Aquatherm Indus., Inc. v.Fla. Power & Light Co., 145 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), Amazon argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for such an arrangement.
"A tying arrangement is 'an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.'" Clark Mem'ls of Ala. Inc. v. SCI Ala. Funeral Servs. LLC, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1159 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (citing N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1958)). To state a claim for an illegal tying arrangement, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) an actual tying and tied product, (2) some evidence of coercion showing that the seller in fact forced the buyer to purchase the tied product, (3) some evidence that the seller has sufficient market power to carry out the coercion, (4) anticompetitive effects in the tied market, and (5) more than an insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market." AstroTel, Inc. v. Verizon Fla., LLC, No. 8:11-cv-2224-T-33TBM, 2012 WL 1581596, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2012) (citing Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Even taking Plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for an illegal tying arrangement.Plaintiff has not alleged that any Defendant "refus[ed] to sell two products separately." S. Card & Novelty, Inc. v. Lawson Mardon Label, Inc., 138 F.3d 869, 875 (11th Cir. 1998). But even assuming that ISBN numbers are a "product" that can be "tied" to Plaintiff's books, or that Defendants' willingness to sell Plaintiff's books online can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial