Sieger Suarez Architectural P'ship, Inc. v. Arquitectonica Int'l Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 February 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 13–21928–CIV.
• Citation: 998 F.Supp.2d 1340
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Parties: The SIEGER SUAREZ ARCHITECTURAL PARTNERSHIP, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, v. ARQUITECTONICA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Regalia Beach Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Golden Beach Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Regalia Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Paul Murphy, an individual, and Luis Montello, an individual, Defendants.

998 F.Supp.2d 1340

The SIEGER SUAREZ ARCHITECTURAL PARTNERSHIP, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff,

v.ARQUITECTONICA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Regalia Beach Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Golden Beach Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Regalia Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Paul Murphy, an individual, and Luis Montello, an individual, Defendants.

Case No. 13–21928–CIV.

United States District Court,

S.D. Florida,

Miami Division.

Feb. 14, 2014.

Glen H. Waldman, Jason Gordon, Eleanor Trotman Barnett, Heller Waldman, P.L., Coconut Grove, FL, for Plaintiff.

Feldman Gale PA, John Kressfield Shubin, Juan Jose Farach, Jr., Lauren Gina Brunswick, Miami, FL, for Defendant Arquitectonica Jeffrey David FeldmanSusan Joy Latham.

Andres Rivero, Rivero Mestre LLP, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants Resalia Beach Developers, Golden Beach Developers, and Luis Montello.

Pardo Gainsburg, PL, Miami, FL, for Defendants Resalia Holdines and Paul Murphy Elissa Hope Gainsburg.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Arquitectonica's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (D.E. 81). Upon review of the record and careful consideration, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

“Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins.” ¹ Two prominent South Florida architecture firms created their own visions for putting bricks together to form a condominium building in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. The vision of one of those firms, Arquitectonica International (“Arquitectonica”), came to fruition in the construction of the building now known as Regalia. The other firm, The Sieger Suarez Architectural Partnership (“Sieger Suarez”), brings the instant action alleging that Arquitectonica's plan infringes upon Sieger Suarez's copyright on plans it developed and further alleging that various developers and their principals also infringed on Sieger Suarez's copyright and contributed to and profited from Arquitectonica's infringement.

Much like the construction of a building, this case has numerous pieces, all relying on and related to each other. The foundation is Defendant Arquitectonica's alleged infringement on Plaintiff Sieger Suarez's plans. Without that foundational infringement, the case will crumble.

This case was filed on May 31, 2013. D.E. 1. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges copyright infringement against Arquitectonica. Counts II, IV, and VI allege contributory copyright infringement against Regalia Beach Developers, Regalia Holdings & Paul Murphy, and Golden Beach Developers, respectively. Counts III, V, VII, and X allege vicarious copyright infringement against Regalia Beach Developers, Regalia Holdings & Paul Murphy, Golden Beach Developers, and Luis Montello, respectively. Counts VIII and IX allege copyright infringement against Regalia Beach Developers and Golden Beach Developers, respectively.

Regalia Beach Developers (RBD) and Golden Beach Developers (GBD) have ownership interests in the project.² D.E. 72, ¶¶ 5, 6. Regalia Holdings is alleged to be a developer of the project and Paul Murphy is alleged to be its principal. Id., ¶¶ 7, 8. Luis Montello is alleged to be a managing member of RBD, GBD, and Regalia Beach Holdings, LLC.³Id., ¶¶ 9, 162, 163.

Upon the filing of the original Complaint, all Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss. After the Motions to Dismiss aimed at the original Complaint were fully briefed, Plaintiff moved for and was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. D.E. 71. Now pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Arquitectonica (D.E. 81); Regalia Holdings and Paul Murphy (D.E. 97); and GBD, RBD, and Luis Montello (D.E. 72).

The facts, as set forth in the Amended Complaint and taken as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss are as follows. In August 2000, Plaintiff was hired by an entity, Mori Classics, to design plans for a building at 19505 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. D.E. 72, ¶ 15. The project is now known as Regalia. In 2006, Plaintiff completed plans for the Regalia project, for which the United States Copyright Office issued copyrights on January 30, 2006 and July 25, 2006. Id., ¶ 26; D.E. 72–5.

Defendant Murphy was later brought in as a new partner in the project. D.E. 72, ¶ 24. Defendant Murphy and another individual who is not party to this suit then replaced Plaintiff with Defendant Arquitectonica as the project's architect. Id. Sometime in 2006, Defendant Regalia Holdings also entered into an agreement with Defendant Arquitectonica for architectural work. Id., ¶ 32.

After 2006, Plaintiff had no further involvement with the project. Id., ¶ 30. However, in May 2006, one of Plaintiffs employees sent a copy of Plaintiffs plans to Defendant Arquitectonica. Id., ¶ 29. On July 20, 2006, Defendant Arquitectonica's counsel ⁴ sent Plaintiff a fax containing Arquitectonica's exterior renderings and floor plans for the Regalia project. Id., ¶ 33. Sometime between 2009 and 2010, Defendant RBD purchased the Regalia project. Id., ¶ 37. On or about March 22, 2011, Defendants GBD and Regalia Holdings were assigned, among other things, Arquitectonica's plans and the rights relating to the Regalia project. Id., ¶ 38.

On October 26, 2011, Defendant Luis Montello, as manager of RBD, entered into an agreement with Arquitectonica for work on Regalia. Id., ¶ 40. Around February 2012, Plaintiff learned construction was underway on Regalia and that Defendant's allegedly-infringing plans were being used. Id., ¶ 46.

Defendant Arquitectonica moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint as failing to state a viable cause of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and as time-barred. The Court heard oral argument on this Motion on December 17, 2013. D.E. 117.

II. LEGAL STANDARD: MOTION TO DISMISS

A complaint must contain short and plain statements of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, of the cause of action, and of the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Under the heightened pleading standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), there must be “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on [the] face” of the complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show entitlement to relief and must plead “more than labels and conclusions.... A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept a complaint's well-pled allegations as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Such allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir.2010). “In analyzing the sufficiency of the complaint, [the Court] limit[s] [its] consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations, documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir.2004). The Court may also consult documents that are attached to the motion to dismiss under the “incorporation by reference” doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit has defined the incorporation by reference doctrine to mean:

[A] document attached to a motion to dismiss may be considered by the court without converting the motion into one for summary judgment only if the attached document is: (1) central to the plaintiffs claim; and (2) undisputed.... “Undisputed” in this context means that the authenticity of the document is not challenged.

Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted); see also Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir.2005).

III. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

A. LEGAL STANDARD

Copyright infringement requires that a plaintiff owned a valid copyright and a defendant copied constituent elements of the work that are original. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). Here, there is no direct proof of copying. In such a case, a plaintiff may establish copying by demonstrating that the defendant had access to plaintiff's work and that the plaintiff's and defendant's works are substantially similar. Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir.2008) (citing Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm't, 193 F.3d 1241, 1248 (11th Cir.1999)).

i. Protection of Architectural Works

The copyright infringement analysis is impacted by the fact that the works in question are architectural designs. Architectural works are protected under the Copyright Act as a work of authorship and defined as, “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C § 101, 102(a)(8).

An architectural work does include “the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; H.R.Rep. No. 101–735 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6949. However, “individual standard features” such as windows and doors, are excluded from the definition of “architectural work.” Id. The goal of this definition is to strike a balance between promoting the “progress of architectural innovation” and protecting an architect's creativity. Id. Individual elements are ideas, which are not protectable, but the architect's combination and arrangement of those features may protectable. Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 475 F.3d 1239, 1251 (11th Cir.2007).

Architectural works have been deemed analogous to “compilations.” Intervest Const., Inc. v....