Suliivan v. Bullrun Productions et al

Filing 48

OPINION. The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Sullivan has 30 days from the date of this order to amend the complaint. Given that the court has granted numerous extens ions in this case, no further extensions will be granted. This opinion resolves the motion located at Doc. No. 18. re: 18 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue filed by Viacom, Spike, MTV. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 8/13/2014) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------x
:
SHARLENE SULLIVAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
– against –
:
:
ANDREW DUNCAN, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------x

13-cv-1640 (TPG)

OPINION

This case concerns the reality-television show “Bullrun,” which features
teams competing to win a car race. Before the court is a motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by defendants Viacom Media Networks, MTV, and Spike
(the “Viacom defendants”).
For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Procedural History
Plaintiff Sharlene Sullivan filed this action on March 11, 2013 as a pro se
plaintiff. Sullivan did not serve defendants with copies of the complaint until
December 2013 due to confusion regarding how to properly effect service.
Given Sullivan’s pro se status, the court granted two extensions of the 120-day
period plaintiffs typically have to serve defendants under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m).

On December 26, 2013, the Viacom defendants filed a motion to dismiss
asserting numerous grounds for dismissal, including: lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
untimely service under Rule 4(m), and improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3).
Upon

receiving

defendants’

motion,

Sullivan

requested

a

60-day

extension to respond so that she could obtain legal representation. The court
granted that request. Sullivan retained an attorney, and the court granted an
additional 30-day extension to afford Sullivan’s counsel time to prepare its
opposition.
The Complaint
Sullivan claims that defendants stole her idea for a reality-television
show about a car-race competition.

Sullivan alleges that she met with

producers to discuss the show in May 2006 and that they verbally agreed to
pay her for the idea. Nothing further took place after that meeting until March
2007 when the television show “Bullrun” first aired.

Sullivan alleges that

“Bullrun” is based on the idea that she proposed to defendants. Sullivan has
not received any compensation for her alleged involvement in creating the
series.
The complaint cites diversity of citizenship, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as
the basis for jurisdiction. Sullivan alleges that she is a citizen of New York;
Bullrun Productions, Bullrun L.L.C., and Andrew Duncan are citizens of
California; David Green is a citizen of Louisiana; Maloof Television is a citizen
2

of Nevada; and Fox Television, Viacom Media Networks, MTV, Spike, and Speed
are citizens of New York. The complaint does not state the amount of damages
sought in this action.

The complaint lists no other basis for federal

jurisdiction.
Discussion
The Viacom defendants contend that the court should dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“Federal courts are powerless to adjudicate a suit unless they have
subject matter jurisdiction over the action.” European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco,
Inc., No. 11-cv-2475, 2014 WL 1613878, at *10 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2014). To
establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the
dispute is between citizens of different states.

It is well settled that

section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship. See Hallingby v.
Hallingby, 574 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 2009). In other words, plaintiff’s citizenship
must be different from that of each of the defendants.
Sullivan fails to satisfy either of the requirements set by section 1332.
First, nowhere in the complaint does Sullivan state the amount in controversy.
The

only

relief

. . . compensation.”

sought

is

“proper

(Compl. ¶ V).

credit”

or

“some

kind

of

just

Second, Sullivan fails to plead complete

diversity of citizenship. The complaint lists Sullivan and five defendants—Fox
Television, Viacom Media Networks, MTV, Spike, and Speed—as citizens of New
3

York. Thus, there is not complete diversity because Sullivan shares her state
of citizenship with multiple defendants.
Without a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the complaint.

However, Sullivan attempts to cure these defects by

arguing new facts in her opposition to the motion to dismiss. She argues that
she was mistaken about the citizenship of several defendants at the time she
filed the complaint.

(Pl. Opp. at 5).

She now argues that none of the

defendants are citizens of New York, and thus there is complete diversity. (Id.)
She also argues that her claim is potentially worth “millions of dollars.” (Pl.
Opp. at 18).
Including information in the opposition to a motion to dismiss which
contradicts information contained in the complaint is not a proper way to
amend the complaint. However, because Sullivan’s opposition papers suggest
that there may be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will allow
her to amend the complaint.
Conclusion
The court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Sullivan has 30 days from the
date of this order to amend the complaint. Given that the court has granted
numerous extensions in this case, no further extensions will be granted.
This opinion resolves the motion located at Doc. No. 18.

4

Dated: New York, New York
August 13, 2014

Thomas P. Griesa
U.S. District Judge

· ·usocsoNY

I

DOCUMENT

J!

!;

' ELECTRONICALLY Fll..ED ; !
j DOC#:
\l
J

DA~ FIL~~: (A~.L_o;i[;JI

5