Allen v. Cooper
244 F. Supp. 3d 525
E.D.N.C.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Frederick Allen and Nautilus Productions are the primary copyright holders/underwater documentarians of the Queen Anne’s Revenge wreck; they allege the State and others copied and posted their photos/video without permission.
- In October 2013 plaintiffs and North Carolina (DNCR) executed a settlement paying $15,000 for past infringements; plaintiffs allege the State resumed using their works after the settlement.
- North Carolina amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-25(b) to declare photographs, video, and documentary materials of shipwrecks in government custody to be public records, eliminating contractual limits on their use (later narrowed in text but still creating a claim of conversion to public domain).
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court alleging: (1) § 121-25(b) is preempted by the Copyright Act and unconstitutional (Takings and Due Process), (2) federal copyright infringement, (3) § 1983 takings, and (4) state-law UDTPA and civil conspiracy claims.
- State defendants moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment, legislative/qualified immunity, lack of standing, abstention, and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds; Friends of the QAR moved to dismiss for failure to state claims.
- District court: denied dismissal of federal copyright and preemption (Counts I and II) against all defendants; granted dismissal of the § 1983 takings and state-law claims against State defendants and dismissed UDTPA/civil conspiracy as to Friends of QAR (Counts III–V dismissed as to some defendants).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 121-25(b) is preempted by federal Copyright Act | § 121-25(b) purports to convert copyrighted works into public records, stripping exclusive federal rights | State contends statute governs state public records and is not preempted; abstention and/state-law concerns argued | Court: statute is preempted to the extent it nullifies federal copyright rights; Count I survives |
| Whether State waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by settlement or CRCA abrogates immunity | Settlement language and CRCA permit suit; plaintiffs invoke CRCA abrogation under §5 of 14th Amendment | State: no clear waiver in settlement; CRCA invalid as abrogation of immunity or beyond Congress’s power | Court: settlement did not waive sovereign immunity; CRCA is a valid §5 abrogation for copyright claims — copyright claims allowed; state-law claims barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether individual defendants entitled to legislative or qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: individuals acted unlawfully and can be sued individually | Defendants: legislative immunity for drafting/lobbying; qualified immunity for officials | Court: qualified immunity not resolved at dismissal stage; legislative immunity premature to decide — individual-capacity claims may proceed |
| Standing and abstention | Plaintiffs: ongoing and imminent injury from State’s posture and uses; federal court should decide | Defendants: no imminent harm; federal court should abstain (Pullman/Burford) to allow state court interpretation | Court: plaintiffs have standing; abstention not warranted because federal issues predominate and state clarification would not avoid federal constitutional questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (federal sovereign immunity principle)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal adjudication of state-law claims against state officials)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (congruence-and-proportionality analysis for §5 abrogation; patent context)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (Fourteenth Amendment §5 enforcement and remedial legislation)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (congruence and proportionality standard for §5 legislation)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)