Cooper v. Harvey
108 F. Supp. 3d 463
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- Cooper (Close Up Video Productions) alleges a March 30, 1993 written "Video Contract" with Harvey (Steve Harvey Comedy Club) granting Cooper exclusive rights to original videotapes and the right to use/reproduce them.
- Cooper produced ~120 hours of footage and delayed distributing recordings; he later sought to license/distribute a multi‑volume set titled “Steve Harvey ‘Live, Raw & Uncensored.’ ”
- In 2013–2014 Cooper negotiated a Licensing and Distribution Agreement with Music Video Distributors, Inc.; Cooper alleges Harvey (through counsel) falsely told the distributor Harvey had not conveyed the rights, causing the distributor to decline.
- Procedurally Cooper sued (Nov. 21, 2014) asserting breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, and copyright infringement; Harvey moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for a more definite statement.
- The court (Boyle, J.) denied dismissal of breach and tortious interference claims (finding pleadings plausible), but granted dismissal with prejudice of the copyright claim for failure to allege any actionable infringement (no alleged distribution) and noted Cooper did not allege copyright registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — whether Cooper plausibly alleged a contract, performance, breach, and damages | Cooper says the written 1993 Video Contract granted him exclusive ownership/use of tapes; he performed and Harvey breached by contesting his rights and preventing distribution | Harvey contended Cooper failed to plead formation/consideration, identify breached provisions, or allege how breach occurred | Denied dismissal — complaint sufficiently alleges existence, performance, specific breached provision (exclusive ownership/use), and damages |
| Tortious interference with prospective business relations — whether Cooper pleaded independently tortious act, intent, and damages | Cooper alleges a reasonably probable licensing deal with Music Video Distributors and that Harvey (via counsel) knowingly made false statements that prevented the contract, causing damages | Harvey argued Cooper’s allegations were vague, failed to show actual harm, and that Harvey has a right to protect his own publicity/performances | Denied dismissal — Cooper pleaded a prospective business relationship, an allegedly false statement by Harvey’s counsel (independently tortious act), intent, and resulting harm sufficient at pleading stage |
| Copyright infringement — whether Harvey’s alleged statements to a distributor constitute infringement of Cooper’s exclusive distribution right | Cooper asserts the Video Contract conferred copyright/ownership and that Harvey’s interference prevented Cooper’s exclusive distribution rights (citing §106(3)) | Harvey argued Cooper did not allege any infringing distribution, and Cooper failed to allege registration; merely questioning ownership is not distribution/infringement | Granted dismissal with prejudice — court found no allegation of actual or unauthorized distribution by Harvey; mere interference/statement is not actionable infringement; Cooper also did not allege registration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must plead factual content to state plausible claim)
- Lewis v. Bank of Am. N.A., 343 F.3d 540 (elements of breach of contract under Texas law)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (definition and elements relevant to tortious interference)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright ownership and infringement framework)
- Creations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814 (copyright registration as prerequisite to suit)
- Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 1196 (distinguished — involved unauthorized distribution, not mere interference)