Personal Jurisdiction Deemed Okay In Any Forum
By: Olivier A. Taillieu, Esq. | Posted: 14th August 2007
Where Defendant's 'Express Aim' is to Make Successful Movie
by: Olivier A. Taillieu Esq.
It looks like establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant involved in the entertainment industry just got a whole lot easier. In Goldberg v. Cameron, No. C-05-03534, 2007 WL 641047 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007), the court held that it had specific jurisdiction over movie producer defendants with no actual contacts with the forum because their presumed aim of producing a worldwide blockbuster qualified as purposeful direction toward the forum. This holding would seem to extend to any member of the entertainment industry who sets out to make a commercially successful work, meaning any court in the world would have personal jurisdiction over any aspiring entertainer. The most surprising part of this holding, though, is that it is not so outrageous, but rather that it is a straightforward application and extension of existing precedent.
In this slightly quirky case, the plaintiff sued the producers of the Arnold Schwarzenegger-driven Terminator trilogy, alleging copyright infringement. He claimed that he had written and copyrighted a screenplay and accompanying musical soundtrack about a plan by supercomputers to take over the world, destroy mankind, save the environment and travel through time, which they then used to create The Terminator. He also stated that he filed his action well beyond the three year statute of limitations because he was immersed in a spiritual Yoga path that involved being removed from – and, indeed, shunning – all forms of electronic media, so he was not aware of the making of The Terminator, its huge success or its alleged infringement of his copyrights.
http://www.zuberlaw.com/practiceareas/EntertainmentLaw.asp
The defendants, producers of the movies, moved to dismiss for improper venue, among other things. They argued that their conduct in producing the movie was limited to the local Los Angeles area and, as such, venue in the Northern District was inappropriate. Pursuant to the venue provision of the Copyright Act, which the Ninth Circuit has interpreted to mean that venue is appropriate wherever the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the court conducted a personal jurisdiction analysis.
The court quickly dispensed of any allegations of general jurisdiction since there was no showing of any sort of contacts with the forum. The court then turned to specific jurisdiction and the "purposeful direction" and "effects" test as established by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1983) and applied in Columbia Pictures Tel. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Tel., 523 U.S. 340 (1998), and Schwarzennegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004).
As the Goldberg court explained, "purposeful direction" means the defendant must have purposefully directed activities toward the forum. The Calder effects test helps to analyze this by examining whether the defendant has committed an intentional act which was expressly aimed at the forum and caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered and which defendant knows will be suffered in the forum. Though frequently the latter part of this equation is established by showing the defendants knew the plaintiff was located in the forum, in this case, there was no such showing. Instead, the court held that the defendants knew their actions – producing the allegedly infringing movies – would result in significant harm in the forum and that this was a sufficient basis for exercising specific personal jurisdiction.
The ruling in Schwarzennegger seems to point directly to this result. In that case, Arnold Schwarzennegger filed suit in a California court against an Ohio car dealership that used his likeness in its advertising without permission. In holding it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the court reasoned that the dealership did not purposefully direct activities toward California. Instead, its “express aim [was] local.” The ads were targeted solely at Ohio customers and had no connection to California.
Following this reasoning, the Goldberg court held that though the defendants’ actions may have taken place locally in Los Angeles, their express goal was to reach not just all of California but to make a "worldwide blockbuster." Unlike the car dealership in Schwarzennegger, which really meant only to reach Ohio customers, the movie producers' "express aim of the alleged copyright infringement would be more than local and would necessarily reach other districts in California."
In addition, the court held that defendants had interjected themselves into the forum by reaping the profits of the original release and DVD of the movie along with other merchandising sales, all of which took place in the forum. Accordingly, the court held it could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants and thus venue was proper.
The result seems a logical extension of the Calder effects test and the Schwarzennegger "express aim holding, despite its potential for effectively obliterating any restraint on establishing personal jurisdiction where an entertainment industry defendant hopes for wide commercial exposure. Ironically, the Goldberg court rejected a claim of general jurisdiction for this exact reason: "[The test for general jurisdiction] is an exacting standard, as it should be because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world." The holding here, however, at least in the context of copyright infringement and entertainment law, seems to do just that.
Though no other court has dealt with the precise issue that arose here, in the most closely analogous case, the Southern District of Ohio reached a different and far narrower conclusion. In Roll v. Dimension Films, L.L.C., No. C 1 05 387, 2006 WL 181993 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2006), the court held it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a movie production company in a copyright infringement action because there was no showing that it had taken action to direct its activities specifically to the forum. Plaintiff, a professional wrestler using the copyrighted name "Shark Boy," sued the movie studio for infringement when it released its movie, "The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl in 3-D."
Though it was a nationally released movie, and presumably had the same goal as any other movie of becoming a huge nationwide, if not worldwide, success, the court found that plaintiff failed to make any allegations concerning purposeful direction specifically toward Ohio.
The Roll court seemed to be looking for some evidence, such as a national distribution agreement, to show that defendants meant to profit from showing their movie in Ohio, as opposed to (or in addition to) anywhere else. This could be construed as nitpicking, since there is no question that a nationally known movie studio, working with world-famous producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, which released its movie on screens across the country, directs its activities to Ohio and to every other location in which the movie is released. The Goldberg court simply presumed that the defendants intended the movie to be successful worldwide, without requiring proof of the way in which it was distributed to back up that presumption. The Roll court, on the other hand, read the Calder effects test requirement -- whether the defendant has committed an intentional act which was expressly aimed at the forum and caused harm - more literally.
The Goldberg opinion was issued just a few months ago and, though it has been cited a few times, it has not yet provoked any sort of outcry or rush to establish personal jurisdiction against entertainment industry defendants in seemingly unconnected venues.
About the Author
Mr. Taillieu is a partner in the litigation department of Zuber & Taillieu LLP (www.zuberlaw.com). He earned his J.D. with highest honors from George Washington University School of Law, where he graduated #1 in the day class and was Managing Editor of the Law Review.
This article is copyright
Printed From: http://www.articlealley.com/article_201745_18.html
Back to the original article