Halper v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC
3:16-cv-00567
M.D. Tenn.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Mark Halper sued multiple music industry entities alleging copyright infringement for Sam Smith’s song “Stay With Me.”
- Defendants Stellar Songs Ltd., Salli Isaak Songs Ltd., and Method Records Live Ltd. (UK companies) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- Each defendant submitted declarations stating they are English limited companies headquartered in London, with no offices, property, employees, business licenses, or product distribution in Tennessee.
- Each defendant’s asserted interest in the song is administered by third-party UK publishers (Sony/ATV UK or Universal Music Publishing UK); defendants contend they did not purposefully direct activities to Tennessee.
- Service issues: one defendant was not timely served; another had service sent to its accounting firm during employee turnover; one defendant believed the motion covered it because of counsel correspondence.
- Magistrate Judge Frensley recommended granting the motion, dismissing Halper’s claims against Stellar, Salli, and Method, and terminating them from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over UK defendants | Halper contends defendants can be sued in TN (implicit by filing) | Defendants lack continuous/systematic contacts with Tennessee (no offices, property, employees, licenses, or sales) | No general jurisdiction — defendants are not "at home" in Tennessee |
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction for copyright claims | Halper alleges infringement tied to song distribution (implying TN contacts) | Defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of Tennessee; third-party administration in UK; no Tennessee-directed agreements | No specific jurisdiction — no purposeful availment or related forum contacts |
| Sufficiency of service/process for certain defendants | Halper served summons on named entities | Defendants assert improper or ineffective service for some (wrong addresses; served at accounting firm during turnover) | Service issues noted; but dispositive jurisdictional lack led to dismissal of claims against properly and improperly served defendants alike |
| Whether dismissal or retention is appropriate remedy | Halper seeks relief on merits | Defendants seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction | Recommendation: grant 12(b)(2) motion and dismiss/terminate these defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir.) (definition of general jurisdiction based on continuous and systematic contacts)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir.) (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant be "at home" in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (limits on general jurisdiction)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge recommendations)