Peterson v. Smith

Filing 55

ORDER terminating 35 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating 43 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 44 Motion for Hearing; terminating 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating 51 Motion for Hearing; terminating 52 Motion for Full Trial ; terminating 54 Motion for Sanctions; and dismissing this case without prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/18/2014. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

CHARLES

PETERSON,

d/b/a

•

Desert Sounds Records,

•
•k

Plaintiff,

•k
•k
•k

vs.

CV

113-119

•k

ERIC D. SMITH,

d/b/a World

*
•k

Records Productions and d/b/a
Smidi Beats Market Records,

*

Defendant.

0

Before

the

a

Court

music

are

parties

in

reasons

stated herein,

R

D

E

R

numerous

copyright

motions

from both

infringement

the motions

are

case.

TERMINATED

pro

For
and

se

the
this

case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

I.

BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit in
this

Court

against

Defendant

violation of 17 U.S.C.

for copyright

§ 501. On August 12,

infringement

2013,

in

Defendant

appeared pro se and filed an answer. On December 9, 2013, the
Court resolved multiple motions from both pro se parties and

gave clear instructions to Plaintiff regarding the possible
dismissal

of

his

claim.

Even before proceeding to the merits of Plaintiff's
copyright claim, Plaintiff s motions for summary
judgment falter. Unquestionably, a copyright owner
is entitled to bring an action against those who
infringe on his protected works. However, no civil
action for infringement of the copyright in any
United

States

preregistration
claim has been

work

shall

be

instituted

until

or registration of the copyright
made. Although this registration

requirement
is
not
precondition to suit.

jurisdictional,

it

is

a

Here, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that
he has registered the copyright claims of the works
at issue with the Copyright Office in accordance
with § 411(a). It is not enough that Plaintiff
simply alleged in his complaint that he is the
rightful owner of the copyrighted works at issue.
Plaintiff
must
present
valid
evidence
of
registration; otherwise, his suit risks dismissal.
(Order

of

Dec.

9,

2013,

at

14-15)(internal

citations

and

punctuation omitted)(emphasis added). Nine months after those
instructions

evidence

that

were

he

given,

Plaintiff

registered his

has

claims

yet

with

to

present

the

any

Copyright

Office.

II.

The text of 17

U.S.C.

DISCUSSION

§

411

is clear.

[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright
in any United States work shall be instituted until
preregistration or registration of the copyright
claim has been made

17 U.S.C.

§ 411(a).

in accordance with this

title.

The United States Supreme Court and the

Eleventh Circuit have not specifically addressed the question
whether a district court may sua sponte enforce this statutory

requirement.
154,

171

F.3d

1294,

See

(2010);

1302

Reed Elsevier,
see also

n.

8

Inc.

Kernal

(11th Cir.

v.

Muchnick,

Records

2012).

Ov

v.

559

U.S.

Moslev,

However,

the

694

Court

concludes that a plaintiff asserting a claim for copyright

infringement must provide evidence, or at least allege,
the

copyrighted work

Copyright

Office.

copyright

claim

is

registered with

Absent
is

that

required

evidence

to

be

the

or

United

that

States

allegation,

dismissed,

but

the

without

prejudice to the filing of an action after the registration is
made.

See Buruss v. Zolciak-Biermann,

(N.D.

Ga.

prejudice

Oct.
a

11,

2013) (sua

copyright

2013 WL 5606667,

sponte

infringement

dismissing

action

where

at *3

without

plaintiffs

failed to allege that the copyrighted works were registered
with the United States Copyright Office).
Because
presented

Plaintiff

evidence

in

that

his

this

case

works

are

has

not

alleged

registered

with

or
the

Copyright Office, the Court of its own accord DISMISSES this
case without prejudice.

In the Order dated December 9, 2013,

the Court gave clear notice to Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
of

the

Court's

intention

to

take

this

wishes to pursue this matter further,

with the

action.

If

he must

first comply

statutory registration requirement

U.S.C. § 411(a)

set

Plaintiff

out

in

17

then file a new claim in an appropriate court

with jurisdiction over this matter and over these parties.

III.

CONCLUSION

The Court hereby TERMINATES all pending motions (docs. nos.
35, 40, 43, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54) and DISMISSES this case without
prejudice.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
September,

/^^"day of

2014.

indal

Hall

'States District Judge
!xn District of Georgia