Poet Theatricals Marine, LLC v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 20-24619-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | POET THEATRICALS MARINE, LLC; et al., Plaintiffs, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC.; et al., Defendants. |
Cheryl L. Riess, Mark J. Mintz, Mintz Truppman, P.A., North Miami, FL, Craig Mitchell Greene, Kramer Green Zuckerman Greene & Buchsbaum, Hollywood, FL, for Plaintiffs.
John C. Carey, Carey Rodriguez Greenberg O'Keefe LLP, David Matthew Levine, Sanchez Fischer Levine, LLP, Juan Jose Rodriguez, Nicholas John Doyle, Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendants Celebrity Cruises Inc., Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD.
Allan Aaron Joseph, Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, Miami, FL, for Defendants Costco Travel, Cruises Inc., Cruise One, Inc., Tourico Holidays Inc., World Travel Holdings, Direct Line Cruises, Inc.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs, Poet Theatricals Marine, LLC; Poet Productions, LLC; Poet Technical Services, LLC; and Poet Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 30], filed on December 10, 2020. Defendants, Celebrity Cruises, Inc. ("Celebrity"); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.; Costco Travel; Cruises Inc.; Cruise One, Inc.; Cruise One, Inc. d/b/a Dream Vacations; Tourico Holidays, Inc. d/b/a LastMinuteCruises.com; World Travel Holdings d/b/a Cruises.com; World Travel Holdings d/b/a Cruises Only; World Travel Holdings d/b/a CheapCruises.com; and Direct Line Cruises, Inc. (the "Co-Defendants" or together with Celebrity, the "Defendants"), filed an Opposition to Motion to Remand [ECF No. 38], to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply [ECF No. 39]. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ written submissions, the Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief (the "Complaint") (see [ECF No. 1-2] 5–28),1 the record, and the applicable law. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
This suit involves a dispute over the unauthorized and continued use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property. (See generally Compl.). Plaintiffs, Poet Theatricals Marine, LLC; Poet Productions, LLC; and Poet Technical Services, LLC, are Louisiana limited liability companies whose sole members are Florida domiciliaries. (See id. ¶¶ 1–3). Plaintiff, Poet Holdings, Inc., a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, is the holder of the intellectual property created and utilized by Poet Theatricals Marine, LLC; Poet Productions, LLC; and Poet Technical Services, LLC. (See id. ¶ 4). Defendants are either foreign or Florida corporations conducting business in Florida. (See id. ¶¶ 5–15).
The facts . Plaintiffs create, produce, and execute live marketing and entertainment concepts, including shows aboard cruise lines. (See id. ¶ 18). Plaintiffs entered into agreements with Celebrity, under which Plaintiffs created, developed, pre-produced, and produced shows for Celebrity's vessels. (See id. ¶¶ 19–20). Plaintiffs performed these shows regularly aboard the vessel for which they were produced until the termination of the specific vessel's agreement. (See id. ¶ 20). The last agreement with Celebrity terminated in March 2016. (See id. ).
Celebrity acquired numerous video recordings and still photographs of Plaintiffs’ shows. (See id. ¶ 21). These "recordings and photographs reflected" Plaintiffs’ "artistic works, concepts, ideas, and other creations[.]" (Id. (alteration added)). By the terms of the agreements, Celebrity had "the exclusive right and limited license to use, perform or display [Plaintiffs’] shows on the vessel during the Term of this Agreement." (Id. ¶ 22 ()). The "Ownership" section of the agreements provided: "If Cruise Line wishes to use any Project Materials for any other purpose other than in Producer's Shows within the scope of this Agreement, Cruise Line must obtain a license for such use from Producer." (Id. (quotation marks omitted)).
Project Materials, in turn, were defined as:
[T]he data, materials, documentation, computer programs, inventions (whether or not patentable), pictures, audio, video, animation, artistic works, musical orchestrations, documents, text, photographs, pictures, sound recordings, programs, concepts, ideas, studies, artwork, plates, negatives, positives, DVDs, CD-ROMS, scripts, proofs, brochures, text, copy, and all other works of authorship provided by Producer, and all drafts, copies and other physical embodiments thereof, together with all images, likenesses, voices, and other characteristics contained therein, including all worldwide rights therein under patent, copyright, trade secret, confidential information, moral rights, and other property rights, created or developed in whole or in part by Producer and used in and in connection with the Shows. Project Materials shall not include third party owned or controlled properties [e.g., Broadway or popular music owned by others and any similar underlying rights in third party literary, theatrical or other properties] included in the Shows with Cruise Lines approval.
(Id. ¶ 23 ()). Stated succinctly, Project Materials were the intellectual property Plaintiffs developed and used in the shows. (See id. ). Each agreement provided that "[a]ll Project Materials shall be and remain the sole property of [Plaintiffs] and shall be delivered to [Plaintiffs] upon termination of this [a]greement." (Id. ()).
The terms of the agreements granted Celebrity a "limited license" to use, perform, or display the shows over the duration of each agreement. (Id. ¶ 24 (quotation marks omitted)). Despite knowing the use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property was not permitted following the termination of the agreements, Celebrity "continued to use the video recordings and still photographs of scenes in [Plaintiffs’] shows in promotional materials about cruises aboard vessels in Celebrity's fleet following termination of the agreements between [Plaintiffs] and Celebrity." (Id. (alterations added)). These promotional materials "were displayed on Celebrity's own websites worldwide" and "appeared ... in various digital and print brochures and posters used in marketing in various venues." (Id. ¶ 25 (alteration added)).
Celebrity has caused and allowed Co-Defendants to use Plaintiffs’ intellectual property to their benefit. (See id. ¶ 26). By way of example, Co-Defendants either "display[ed] scenes from [Plaintiffs’] shows as part of [their] efforts to recruit quality staff" or "used and/or continue to use the still images and video recordings obtained from Celebrity on their websites to sell cruises aboard Celebrity vessels[.]" (Id. (alterations added)). Defendants "enjoy[ ] a commercial advantage by the use of the images and recordings for which they have not paid." (Id. (alteration added)).
In 2019, Plaintiffs discovered Defendants’ misappropriation and wrongful use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property. (See id. ¶ 27). Although they were put on notice of the wrongful use and asked to cease use, Defendants continue to display Plaintiffs’ shows on their websites. (See id. ). In other words, Defendants "continue to benefit from their misappropriation and wrongful use of [Plaintiffs’] intellectual property." (Id. (alteration added)).
Plaintiffs’ claims . On September 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court against Defendants asserting claims for conversion (Count I); unjust enrichment (Counts II, III, IV, VI, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX); and vicarious liability for unjust enrichment (Counts V, VII, IX, XI, XIII, XV, XVII, XIX, XXI).
Defendants’ Removal . On November 10, 2020, Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. According to Defendants, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.2 (See Notice of Removal ¶ 7). Defendants state Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 301, because "the rights at issue fall within the subject matter of copyright and are equivalent to the exclusive rights of copyright." (Notice of Removal ¶ 20). Under 28 U.S.C. section 1338(a), the Court has original jurisdiction of any action arising under the Copyright Act.
Plaintiffs’ Motion . By their present Motion, Plaintiffs argue removal is improper because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their state law claims, none of which, according to Plaintiffs, is preempted by the Copyright Act. (See generally Mot.; Reply).
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, an action filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction exists in civil actions presenting federal questions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To determine whether a claim "arises under" federal law, courts look to "whether a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint." Conn. State Dental Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. , 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ). " ‘As a general rule, a case arises under federal law only if it is federal law that creates the cause of action.’ " Id. (quoting Diaz v. Sheppard , 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996) ). Where, as here, a complaint alleges exclusively state law claims, "there is no jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule." Id.
One exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule is complete preemption, which arises when "the pre-emptive force of a statute is so ‘extraordinary’ that it ‘converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.’ " Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. v. RG Mich. 2014 LLC
... ... See Poet Theatricals Marine, LLC v. Celebrity Cruises, ... ...