822 F. Supp. 2d 803
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Joe Hand filed suit against Cathal Lynch and The Atlantic Bar & Grill in ND Ill, alleging unauthorized interception of UFC programming under 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 (satellite) and 553 (cable) and a state-law conversion claim.
- Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights to broadcast UFC 100: Making History and that Atlantic broadcast without authorization, with knowledge of lack of authorization.
- Atlantic argues Counts I and II are mutually exclusive under § 605 and § 553 and cannot be pled in the alternative.
- Complaint contends the two statutes apply to different transmission modalities and a single act may implicate either statute depending on facts to be developed; discovery will reveal which statute applies.
- Court grants in part and denies in part: Counts I–II survive; Count III (conversion) dismissed for lack of cognizable right to intangible property under Illinois law.
- Rule 12(b)(6) standard applied to the complaint; the allegations deemed sufficient to plead plausible claims for I and II, but conversion is analyzed and rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts I and II are plausibly pled in the alternative. | Joe Hand pleads misappropriation under both statutes, implying alternative theories. | Atlantic argues mutual exclusivity requires dismissal or standalone pleading, not alternative. | Counts I–II survive as alternative pleading is permissible in this context. |
| Whether conversion under Illinois law lies for misappropriation of intangible television programming. | Joe Hand's exclusive right to broadcast may be converted. | Intangible rights cannot be converted unless merged into a tangible document; Illinois has not extended conversion to intangibles here. | Count III dismissed; conversion cannot be applied to intangible TV programming under Illinois law. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thebus, 108 Ill.2d 255 (Ill. 1985) (tangible connection required for conversion of intangible rights)
- Bilut v. Northwestern Univ., 296 Ill.App.3d 42 (Ill. App. 1998) (conversion lies only for tangible property or property connected to tangible form)
- Stathis v. Geldermann, Inc., 295 Ill.App.3d 844 (Ill. App. 1998) (intangible assets may be convertibility dicta; not decisive authority)
- Film and Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., 368 Ill.App.3d 462 (Ill. Dist. 1st 2006) (intangible rights cannot be converted unless merged into tangible document)
- Janes v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 11 Ill.2d 631 (Ill. 1973) ( Illinois law limits conversion to tangible or tangibly connected rights)
- American National Insurance Co. v. Citibank, 543 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2008) (Illinois does not recognize conversion of intangible rights)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Menards, Inc., 285 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2002) (applies state law; conversion guidance for Illinois)
- Norris v. United States, 88 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1996) (statutes: §605 applies to satellite/radio; §553 to cable)