PHILPOT v. WKMS/MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY
Filing
37
ORDER - granting 32 Motion to Dismiss; This case is DISMISSED. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/30/2016. (CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LARRY G. PHILPOT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
WKMS/MURRAY STATE
UNIVERSITY,
WKMS,
Defendant.
1:14-cv-01789-SEB-DML
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 32],
filed on March 27, 2015. For the reasons detailed below, we hereby GRANT
Defendant’s motion.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Larry G. Philpot is a professional photographer specializing in the
photography of musicians and concerts. On October 4, 2009, Philpot took a photograph
of Willie Nelson at a concert in St. Louis, MO. Thereafter, he published the image on
Wikipedia and agreed to make the image generally available through Wikimedia for
distribution, public display, and public digital performance under a “Creative Commons
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.” Under the license, a licensee of the photograph is
required to reference the license with every copy of the photograph and to provide the
following attribution: “Photo by Larry Philpot, www.soundstagephotography.com.”
1
Philpot claims that in 2014 Defendant posted the photograph of Willie Nelson to
its website (www.wkms.org) and its Facebook page without authorization or attribution.
On October 31, 2014, Philpot filed a complaint for copyright infringement against
“WKMS/ Murray State University.” Dkt. 1. On November 24, 2014, Murray State
University (“the University”) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing: (1) that Philpot’s claims
were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, (2) that this Court did not have personal
jurisdiction over the defendant, (3) that venue was improper, and (4) that the University
was never properly served with process. See Dkt. 4. Philpot initially opposed the motion,
see dkts. 7, 8, but before the Court could make a ruling, he moved for leave to file an
amended complaint. Dkt. 10. Philpot’s proposed amended complaint sought to eliminate
the University as a defendant while retaining WKMS (the radio station owned and
operated by the University) as a defendant and sought to add a host of new parties,
including: The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), WNET, Thirteen Productions, LLC,
PBS American Masters, the Public Radio Exchange, National Public Radio, WUIS,
WMNF, KUT, and “DOES 1-60.” The Court denied Philpot’s motion because his
proposed amended complaint contained no new allegations that would obviate the
grounds on which the pending motion to dismiss relied and because it failed to address
the immunity, venue, and personal jurisdiction issues raised by the University. Dkt. 12.
The addition of the proposed parties was also denied for reasons of misjoinder. Id.
On February 13, 2015, Philpot again moved for leave to file an amended
complaint. Dkt. 16. Philpot’s proposed Second Amended Complaint sought relief against
2
only WKMS and contained allegations that the radio station is an entity that may be sued
independently of the University, stripping it of any Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity. The proposed Second Amended Complaint also contained allegations that the
radio station had sufficient contacts within this district to grant the court personal
jurisdiction over it and to make venue proper here. Given that the proposed complaint
contained allegations relevant to venue and personal jurisdiction as well as a new
Eleventh Amendment analysis not addressed in the pending motion to dismiss, the Court
granted Philpot’s motion, adopted his proposed Second Amended Complaint, and denied
the pending motion to dismiss as moot. Dkt. 22.
On March 27, 2015, Defendant filed its current Motion to Dismiss arguing: (1)
that WKMS is wholly owned and operated by the University, and is therefore entitled to
the protections of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, (2) that this Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over WKMS and the University, and (3) that Plaintiff failed to
bring this action in the proper venue. See Dkt. 33.
Because a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction presents a threshold question
about our power to act at all, we first address Defendant’s claim of Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit. Baker v. Kingsley, 387 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir.2004); see also Cent.
States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 939
(7th Cir. 2000) (holding that subject-matter jurisdiction should generally be considered
before personal jurisdiction.)
3
Legal Standard 1
Rule 12 (b)(1) authorizes dismissal of complaints that assert no actionable claim
falling within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. In reviewing a motion
under Rule 12(b)(1), we “accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff,” yet, if necessary, we may “look beyond
the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been
submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.” St.
John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir.2007)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). A federal court must assure itself that it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case before it can proceed to take any action on
the merits. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975) (“[T]he threshold question in
every federal case [is] determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.”);
Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir.2006) (“At issue in a Rule 12(b)(1)
motion is the court's very power to hear the case.”). The party asserting jurisdiction bears
the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction by competent proof. Sprint
Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Carmel, Ind., 361 F.3d 998, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). A court must
1
Defendant’s request for dismissal on grounds of sovereign immunity falls under the auspices of Rule
12(b)(1) rather than Rule 12(b)(6) because “the sovereign immunity doctrine found in the Eleventh
Amendment acts as a jurisdictional bar to suit in federal court.” Gorka by Gorka v. Sullivan, 82 F.3d 772
(7th Cir.1996); see also United States v. Willis, 2001 WL 260049, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2001) (“Since
jurisdiction turns upon the government's consent to be sued, sovereign immunity is properly raised in a
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.”).
4
dismiss an action without reaching the merits if it concludes there is no jurisdiction.
Capitol Leasing Co. v. F.D.I.C., 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993).
Discussion
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution states: “The Judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. Through the judicial doctrine of
sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court has broadened the amendment’s language in
some respects and narrowed it in others. See Port Auth. Trans–Hudson Corp. v. Feeney,
495 U.S. 299 (1990). Today, Eleventh Amendment issues arise whenever a private party
files a federal lawsuit against a state, a state agency, or a state official. The effect of the
amendment may differ, however, depending on the category of defendant. Brunken v.
Lance, 807 F.2d 1325, 1328–29 (7th Cir. 1986).
Private party suits against a state are easy to identify and the analysis is relatively
straightforward. Put simply, a state may claim immunity from suit in federal court and
must be dismissed from the litigation unless there exists one of the well-established
exceptions to its immunity. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam). For
purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, state agencies are considered “arms of the state”
and treated the same as the State itself with regard to immunity. Davidson v. Board of
Govs., 920 F.2d 441, 442 (7th Cir. 1990). The only new issue arising in private party suits
5
against a state agency, rather than the State itself, is whether the particular defendant is in
fact an arm of the state entitled to immunity. Kashani v. Purdue Univ., 813 F.2d 843, 845
(7th Cir. 1987).
The vast majority of cases have found that state universities are state agencies
forfended by the Eleventh Amendment. E.g., Kashani, 813 F.2d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 1987)
(collecting cases). Specifically, courts have held that “[p]ublic universities in Kentucky
and their directors are state agencies and officials for Eleventh Amendment purposes.”
Jackson v. Murray State Univ., 834 F. Supp. 2d 609, 613 (W.D. Ky. 2011). It is
undisputed in this case that Murray State University is a state agency entitled to sovereign
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Bleid Sports, LLC v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 976 F. Supp. 2d 911, 914 (E.D. Ky. 2013) (“MSU is a public university
and is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.”); Dkt. 34 at 1 (“Plaintiff will
stipulate that Murray State University, by case law, is protected under the Eleventh
Amendment.”).
However, in his attempt to remedy the deficiencies prompting the University’s
original motion to dismiss his claims, Plaintiff amended his complaint to remove the
University as a defendant to allege that WKMS is “its own entity, not entitled to
sovereign immunity as is MSU.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 18. As a result, we must determine
whether WKMS is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
As the party asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating
subject matter jurisdiction by competent proof. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Carmel,
6
Ind., 361 F.3d 998, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). In support of his claim, Philpot has offered
certain unauthenticated materials discussing provisions of the Internal Revenue Service
and the Social Security Administration that deal with the taxable status and insurance
requirements of state and nonprofit organizations. 2 See Dkts. 34-6, 34-7. This evidence,
however, does not speak to WKMS’s entitlement to sovereign immunity. In Edelman v.
Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars
a suit “by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public
funds in the state treasury,” reasoning that if the damage award is to be paid by the State,
the State is the real party in interest, even if it is not a named party. 415 U.S. at 663.
Thus, when deciding whether a defendant may invoke the State's immunity, we inquire
into the relationship between the State and the entity in question, specifically considering
“the extent of the entity’s financial autonomy from the state.” Kashani, 813. F.2d 843,
845 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that Purdue University was an arm of the state when it
received slightly over 36% if its income from state appropriations).
Here, the evidence is convincing and clear that WKMS is both financially and
operationally dependent on the University and its Board of Regents, which, as we have
already established, is considered the Commonwealth of Kentucky for purposes of
Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Jackson v. Murray State Univ., 834 F. Supp. 2d
2
More precisely, Plaintiff has designated as evidence what appears to be a 1996 article discussing IRS tax
exemptions for “State Institutions-Instrumentalities” including fire departments, public libraries, hospital district,
state colleges, and port authorities, dkt. 34-6, and screen shots from the Social Security Administration’s website
containing what appears to be training materials on “How to Determine An Entity’s Legal Status,” dkt. 34-7. We
need not engage in any analysis as to these attachments’ authenticity or the veracity of their contents given that
federal regulations concerning taxation and insurance have no bearing on whether an entity is entitled to sovereign
immunity.
7
609, 613 (W.D. Ky. 2011). “The Station is located on the campus of Murray State
University (University). WKMS broadcasts National Public Radio and local programs
that inform, enrich and entertain in concert with the mission of the University.” Dkt. 34-3
at 5. The University’s Board of Regents holds the FCC license for WKMS-FM. Dkt. 331. The manager of WKMS reports directly to the University’s Vice-President of
Institutional Advancement, who ultimately reports to the University’s Board of Regents.
Dkts. 33-2, 33-3. The Station’s “Notes to Financial Statements” states that “WKMS-FM
Radio (the Station) is operated by and receives support from Murray State University (the
University). The Station is included in the financial statements of the University.” See
Dkt. 34-4. Moreover, the Independent Auditor’s Report offered by Plaintiff reveals that
the station received $582,074 in general appropriations from the University in 2009,
“which [was] the largest source of cash for the fiscal year.” Dkt. 34-3 at 5. Likewise, the
financial statements provided for 2011 indicate that of the $1,078,274 in nonoperating
revenue, $416,097 came from Murray State University general appropriations and
another $241,202 came from donated facilities and administrative support from the
University. Dkt. 34-8. This type of financial dependence is paradigmatic of a state entity.
The fact that WKMS also generates revenue from underwriting and other activities
certainly does not strip the station of this dependence or of its immunity. See Kashani,
813 F.2d at 845 (finding that Purdue earned income from sources beyond state
appropriations, including: “auxiliary enterprises (17%); student fees (16%); gifts, grants,
and contracts (13%); sales and services (7%); student aid (4%); federal appropriations
(3%); organized activities (2%); endowment income (.1%)”).
8
Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Murray State University Board of
Regents and the Commonwealth of Kentucky remain the real parties in interest to this
action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s amendments in his Second Amended Complaint. 3 We
therefore lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case given that none of the exceptions
to the state’s sovereign immunity apply here. See Philpot v. WUIS/University of Illinois
Springfield, 2015 WL 5037551 (Aug. 25, 2015) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[Docket No. 32]. This case is DISMISSED. Final judgment shall enter accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 3/30/2015
3
We note that universities across the country own and operate licensed radio stations much like WKMS
and those universities and their corresponding directors are uniformly named as the appropriate
defendants to suits concerning their respective stations. See e.g., Holliday v. WSIE 88.7 FM Radio Station,
2005 WL 3312633, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2005) (WSIE University of Southern Illinois); Aldrich v. Knab,
858 F. Supp. 1480, 1501 (W.D. Wash. 1994) (KCMU University of Washington); Mills v. Steger, 64 F.
App'x 864, 867 (4th Cir. 2003) (WVTF Virginia Tech); Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Curators of Univ. of
Missouri, 203 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2000) (KWMU University of Missouri St. Louis); Thomson v. Olson,
866 F. Supp. 1267, 1269 (D.N.D. 1994) aff'd, 56 F.3d 69 (8th Cir. 1995) (KFJM University of North
Dakota); Allain v. Bd. of Supervisors of Univ. of Louisiana Sys., 81 F. Supp. 3d 502 (W.D. La. 2015)
(KEDM University Louisiana Monroe); Miller v. Mearns, 2016 WL 1017760, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 14,
2016) (WNKU Northern Kentucky University).
9
Distribution:
LARRY G. PHILPOT
8125 Halyard Way, 1st Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46236
Lisa C. DeJaco
WYATT TARRANT & COMBS (Lousiville)
ldejaco@wyattfirm.com
Jason Andrew Lopp
WYATT TARRANT COMBS LLP
jlopp@wyattfirm.com
10
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?