Simpson v. Interscope Geffen A&M Records

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING 64 Writ of Quo Warranto signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/28/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JERRY SIMPSON, JR.,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1931 AWI SKO
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO

v.
(Document #64)
INTERSCOPE GIFFEN A&M
RECORDS, a division of UMG
RECORDINGS, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

BACKGROUND

17

This action was brought by plaintiff Jerry Simpson, Jr. (―Plaintiff‖), a pro se litigant,

18

against defendant Interscope Giffen A&M Records (erroneously sued as ―Innerscope A&M Giffen

19

Records‖) (―Defendant‖). Plaintiff‘s First Amended Complaint was a 58-page assemblage of what

20

appeared to be communications to and from the Court, along with some drawings of the product in

21

question and correspondence with a firm called Lambert & Lambert, which appeared to be an

22

inventor‘s consultation business.

23

Liberally reading the First Amended Complaint, the basis of Plaintiff‘s action appeared to

24

be a patent violation. Apparently sometime around 2002, Plaintiff conceived a device called an

25

―Arch Edge Were Wing Extension Free Weight Butterfly Press‖ (hereinafter, the ―Butterfly

26

Press‖). Plaintiff sent his drawings to Lambert & Lambert. The Butterfly Press appeared to be

27

an exercise device. One component of the Butterfly Press was referred to as a ―center cut

28

weight‖, which appears to be a weight on a bar with the area between the center and the radius of

1

the weight cut out in a pattern. The focus of Plaintiff‘s First Amended Complaint was a 2006

2

music video produced by Defendants featuring singer Stacy Ann Ferguson (whose stage name is

3

―Fergie‖) and the group ―Black Eyed Peas.‖

4

exercising with weights. Plaintiff appeared to allege Fergie used a weight that closely resembled

5

Plaintiff‘s Butterfly Press. After reviewing the complaint, the Court concluded that: ―It is

6

Plaintiff‘s apparent belief that he is entitled to compensation from Defendants because something

7

that has the general physical appearance of a component of an assembly Plaintiff had designed

8

was used as a prop in a music video.‖

In some part of the video, Fergie is seen in a gym

9

On May 26, 2011, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint. The Court

10

recognized that ―[d]uring its term, a valid patent excludes all except its owner from the use of the

11

protected process or product. [. . . .] This monopoly may be enjoyed exclusively by the patentee or

12

he may assign the patent ‗or any interest therein‘ to others.‖ United States v. Line Material Co.,

13

333 U.S. 287, 308-09 (1948) (internal citation omitted). However, the Court found that Plaintiff

14

had neither alleged nor established any exclusive right to the Butterfly Press or any portion of it by

15

patent or any other legal process. Thus, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and

16

closed this action.

17
18
19

Plaintiff appealed this Court‘s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal because it was untimely filed.
On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled ―Quo warranto‖, which the

20

Court construes as a motion for the Court to grant a writ of quo warranto. Defendant filed a

21

response to Plaintiff‘s document, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

22
23

DISCUSSION
Black's Law Dictionary defines quo warranto as a ―common-law writ used to inquire into

24

the authority by which a public office is held or a franchise is claimed.‖ Drake v. Obama, 664

25

F.3d 774, 784 (9th Cir. 2011).

26

King of England to determine if an individual's claim to an office or franchise was ―well-

27

founded‖, and if the individual‘s claim was found to be an unlawful possession, the individual

28

would be ousted. Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 n.5 (9th Cir. 1994).

Historically, a petition for writ of quo warranto was used by the

2

In

1

the United States, the Supreme Court has long made it clear that any quo warranto writ remains

2

the Government‘s inherent right. Territory of Neb. v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236, 70 U.S. 236, 240

3

(1865). Issuing a writ of quo warranto ―is an extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, and

4

. . . there is no statute delegating to an individual the right to resort to it.‖ Johnson v. Manhattan

5

Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933).

6

The United States Supreme Court has described the writ of quo warranto as follows:

7

When the National Bank Act was enacted in 1864, ―visitation‖ was accordingly
understood as ―[t]he act of examining into the affairs of a corporation‖ by ―the
government itself.‖ 2 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary 790 (15th ed. 1883). Lower
courts understood ―visitation‖ to mean ―the act of a superior or superintending
officer, who visits a corporation to examine into its manner of conducting business,
and enforce an observance of its laws and regulations.‖ First Nat. Bank of
Youngstown v. Hughes, 6 F. 737, 740 (C.C.N.D.Ohio 1881). A State was the
―visitor‖ of all companies incorporated in the State, simply by virtue of the State's
role as sovereign: The ―legislature is the visitor of all corporations founded by it.‖
Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U.S. 148, 157, 26 S.Ct. 4, 50 L.Ed. 130 (1905) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
This relationship between sovereign and corporation was understood to
allow the States to use prerogative writs—such as mandamus and quo warranto—to
exercise control ―whenever a corporation [wa]s abusing the power given it, or, ... or
acting adversely to the public, or creating a nuisance.‖ H. Wilgus, Private
Corporations, in 8 American Law and Procedure § 157, pp. 224–225 (1910). State
visitorial commissions were authorized to ―exercise a general supervision‖ over
companies in the State. I. Wormser, Private Corporations § 80, pp. 100, 101, in 4
Modern American Law (1921).
....
. . . . In sum, the unmistakable and utterly consistent teaching of our jurisprudence,
both before and after enactment of the National Bank Act, is that a sovereign's
―visitorial powers‖ and its power to enforce the law are two different things. There
is not a credible argument to the contrary.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519, 526-29 (2009).

23

Only the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney for the

24

District of Columbia can initiate a proceeding for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. Drake, 664

25

F.3d at 784. Because case law holds that this writ may be sought only by the United States, and

26

not by private individuals, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a writ of quo warranto under federal

27

law, and there is no proper basis for this Court to retain jurisdiction over this action. See e.g.,

28

Bhambra v. County of Nev., 2010 WL 3258836 at *3 -4 (E.D.Cal. 2010); Allah v. Robinson,
3

1

2007 WL 2220258 at *2 (W.D.Wash. 2007); United States v. Machado, 306 F.Supp. 995, 1000

2

(N.D.Cal.1969).

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff‘s motion for a writ of quo warranto is DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4