Hart v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 12/8/2015. Mailed notice. (jl)
rnc-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
REGINALD HART,
Plaintiff,
No. 15-C-01217
v.
Chief Judge Rub6n Castillo
AMAZON.COM,INC., GLENDA SCALES
AN INDIVIDUAL, ALL KNOWN
AND UNKNOWN THIRD.PARTY AGENT
SELLERS OF AMAZON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Reginald Hart brings this action against Defendants Amazon.com, [nc.
("Amazon"), Glenda Scales (o'Scales"), and "All Unknown and Known Third Party Agent Sellers
o'Defendants") alleging direct, contributory,
of Amazon" ("Third-Party Sellers" and collectively
and vicarious copyright infringement under the Federal Copyright
Ac!17 U.S.C. $ l0l
et seq.,
negligent spoliation of evidence, aiding and abetting o'wrongful acts," intentional infliction
of
emotional distress, and a violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA"),765ltt-.
Covtp.
Srar.
107511 et seq. Before the Court is Amazon's motion for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(c). (R.42, Def.'s Mot.) For the reasons stated
below, the motion is granted.
RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiff, a resident of Illinois, has authored three books: My Life as a Homeless Man,
Vagabond Naturol, and Vagabond Spiritual. (R. 1, Compl. at 3.) These books focus on
Plaintiff
experiences with homelessness and seek to "raise money and bring an end to vagabondage . . . ."
s
(ld.)Plaintiff sold his books in a "few published private sales," but
because he was "creatively
unhappy with his books," he "chose not to publish them to the public atlarge." (ld.)
In September 2009, Plaintiff discovered that Vagabond Natural was for sale on
Amazon's website. (Id. at I l.) Following this discovery, Plaintiff sent Amazon a letter asking
how it obtained his book, how long it had been available for sale, who gave Amazon
authorization to sell the book, and how many copies had been sold. (1d) Plaintiff never received
a response
from Amazon. (Id. at ll-12.) The following year, Plaintiff learned that a relative had
purchased Vagabond Natural on Amazon's website. (Id. at 12.) In early 2014, Plaintiff learned
that Amazon had also begun to sell Vagabond Spiritual, and that the same relative had also
purchased this book on Amazon's website. (Id. at 13.) Thus, on March 23,2014, Plaintiff sent
another letter to Amazon asking for the books to be removed from its website. (ld. at 13-14; see
olso Ex. 8 to Compl.) In response to that letter, Amazon sent Plaintiff a letter, in which Amazon
informed Plaintiff that it was "solely a search engine and not an online retailer." (R.
l, Compl. at
14.) Plaintiff also submitted at least one notification to Amazon through its "Report
Infringement" page asking for Amazon to remove Plaintiff
s
books and reiterating that he has
"never granted you and/or your third party sellers[] authorization to publicize-post or sell my
titles through your website." (Id. at t6-17; see also
Ex.2l to Compl.) Plaintiff
claims that,
despite his repeated requests to remove his books from its website, Amazon continues to
advertise and sell, both directly and through Third-Party Sellers, the unlawfully copied books.
(R. l, Compl. at 27 -28, 35, 43-44, 48-50.)
Scales, a resident of Tennessee, is a "third party agent seller" of Amazon . (Id. at 2, 46.) In
January 2015, Plaintiff alleges that Scales copied the entirety of Vagabond Natural and that
Amazon processed and sold-through Scales as the third-party seller-a counterfeit copy of the
book. (Id. at 46-47.)
As a result of the above actions, on February 9,2015, Plaintiff filed a64-page complaint
(accompanied by 60 exhibits) alleging direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement,
negligent spoliation of evidence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting
the sale of his books, and a violation of the IRPA against Amazon. (R. 1, Compl. at20-45,4863.) In addition, Plaintiff brought a claim against Scales for direct copyright infringement. (Id. at
46-47.) Currently before the Court is Amazon's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
Counts I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.l
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(c) permits
a party
to move for judgment on the pleadings alone. Feo. R. Ctv. P.
l2(c). The pleadings consist of the "the complaint, the answer, and any written instruments
attached as exhibits .- N. Ind. Gun
452 (7th
& Outdoor
Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449,
Cir. 1998) (citing Feo. R. Ctv. P. 10(c)). In addition, Rule l2(h)(2) specifically allows
a
party to argue in a l2(c) motion that the plaintiff has "fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted." Feo. R. CIv. P. l2(h)(2). Thus, a motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c) is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6). Adams v. City of Indianapolis,742F.3d720,727-28 (7th Cir. 2014).To
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must provide "enough facts to state
a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,570
(2007). Factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage, but "allegations in the form
of legal conclusions are insufficient to survive
I
a
Rule l2(bX6) motion." McReynolds v. Merrill
PlaintifPs Complaint has two claims titled "Count VI," but no claim titled "Count VII." (R. l, Compl. at
51, 55.) Forthe sake of clarity, the Court will referto Plaintiffls "Negligence-Spoliation of Evidence"
claim as Count VI and his "Right of Publicity" claim as Count VII.
Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 885 (7th Cir.2012). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." 1d (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009)). A court should grant a Rule l2(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings "[o]nly when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove
any facts to support a claim for relief and the moving party demonstrates that there are no
material issues of fact to be resolved." Supreme Laundry Serv., L.L.C. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.,
521 F.3d 743,746 (7th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Complaint
"liberally" and
holds it "to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." See Bridges v.
Gilbert,557 F.3d 541,546 (7th Cir. 2009). However, while apro se litigant's pleadings are held
to a lesser standard, apro se litigant must still comply with the Court's rules and procedures. See
Mclnnis v. Duncon, 697 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2012) ("As we often have reminded litigants,
even those who are pro se must follow court rules and directives."); see also McNell v. U.S., 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by lpro se litigantsl
. . be liberally construed . . . we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary
civil
litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.")
(internal citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
I.
Copyright Infringement (Counts I & II)
To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove:
"(l) ownership of a
valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." Schrockv.
Learning Curve Int'|, lnc.,586 F.3d 5t3,517 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc.
Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)).
v.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff s Complaint satisfies the first prong of
a copyright
infringement claim. (R. 1, Compl. at3-4; see generallyR.43, Def.'s Mot.) Amazon asserts,
however, that the claim must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the
second
prong-that Amazon copied the protected works. (R. 43, Def.'s Mot.
at 2-3.)
Specifically, Amazon contends that Plaintiff has failed to state claims for direct infringement of
Vagabond
Natural and Vagabond Spiritual because: (1) a title of a book is not, by itself, subject
to copyright protection and, thus, the posting of the books' titles on Amazon's website cannot
form the basis of a copyright infringement claim; and (2) Plaintiff "has suggested that Amazon
illegally copied [the] books," but there is "no factual or legal allegation of this in the complaint,
and
it cannot form
a basis
for relief." (R. 43, Def.'s Mot. at 2 n.l.) The Court must therefore
determine whether the Complaint includes factual content establishing that Amazon infringed on
Plaintiff s copyrights by copying Vagabond Natural and Vagabond Spiritual. The Court finds
that it does not and, therefore, the direct copyright infringement claims set fonh in Counts I and
II
are dismissed.
As Amazon points out, Plaintiff s direct infringement claims focus largely on Amazon's
posting of the titles"Vagabond Natural" and"Vagabond Spirituaf'on its website. (R. 43, Def.'s
Mot. at 2-3.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that Amazon: (1) "unlawfully copied the original
element of[] Vagabond Natural[] by inputting into its catalog the copyrighted language:
Vagabond Natural onto its computer(s) and/or its website(s)"; and (2) "directly infringed upon
plaintiffls rights by inputting an exact reproduction, post and display to 'millions' viewing its
website . . . of the consecutive wording[) Vagabond Natural." (R. 1, Compl. at2l,24-25
(emphasis omitted); see also id. at32,35-36 (repeating same allegations for Vagabond
Spirituat).) Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that the titles of his books are copyright protected because
if
a user inputs the words "Vogabond
Natural' or o'Vagabond Spiritual"
as a search term on the
U.S. Copyright Office website, the search will reveal that those titles are only associated with
Plaintiff s name. (R. l, Compl. at25-26;
see also id.
at36-37 (repeating same allegations for
Vagabond Spiritual).) These allegations are insufficient to support a copyright infringement
claim.
A title of a copyrighted work
o'is
not subject to copyright protection." Wihtol v. Wells,
231F.2d 550, 553 (7th Cir. 1956); see also Peters v. West,776F. Supp. 2d742,749 (N.D. Ill.
2011) (stating that "titles by themselves are not subject to copyright protection" and concluding
that the complaint "does not plausibly allege that the title of [the] Song is a protectable element
of the work"); Sweet v. City of Chi.,953 F. Supp. 225,229 (N.D.
Ill.
1996) ("It is well
established that titles and short phrases are not protected by copyright."). Thus, regardless
of
how Plaintiff phrases these claims, he simply cannot maintain claims for direct copyright
infringement based upon Amazon's posting of the titles Vagabond Natural and Vagabond
Spiritual.
The Complaint also lacks allegations that Amazon directly engaged in the copying of his
books. In support of his claim that Amazon copied Plaintiff s books, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) the
books "Amazon . . . have sold . . . are not only unauthorized infringements-they are
counterfeits"; (2) he has witnessed "the theft and exploitation of his property on Amazon's
website"; (3) Amazon failed to stop the "theft of [his] copyrighted property"; (4) "Amazon has
converted fPlaintiff s] property without [his] consent into its own use"; and (5) "Amazon has
intentionally burdened [Plaintiff] with its infringement by reproduction, publication and display
of [his] copyrightedworks...."(R.
1, Compl.
at9,12,15, 16, 18,29.) Simplyput,these
allegations are insufficient.
6
While Plaintiff
s
copyright infringement claims will not "be held to a particularity
requirement akin to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)," Mid Am. Title Co. v.
Kirk,99l
F
.2d
417,421-22 (7thCir. 1993), Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to meet the requisite standards
of lqbal and Twombly. Plaintiff does not allege any factual content in support of his claims or
articulate any circumstances whatsoever relating to Amazon's direct copying of Vagabond
Natural and Vagabond Spiritual. Instead, Plaintiff merely speculates that Amazon must have
engaged in direct copyright infringement. In addition,
Plaintiff s allegations of "theft,"
"conversion," and "counterfeiting" are precisely the sort of "naked assertions[s] devoid of further
factual enhancement" that do withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) or l2(c) challenge. Iqbal,556 U.S. at
678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557); see also Flava Worl
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?