Johnson v. Cypress Hill
641 F.3d 867
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson wrote the Song Is It Because I'm Black with Watts and Jones; Cypress Hill used a 2.5-second excerpt of the Song in Interlude on Black Sunday; Johnson sued in 2003 alleging copyright infringement of SRU-360-891; Johnson’s 1969 recording was not covered by a valid federal copyright; the district court granted summary judgment for Cypress Hill finding Johnson failed to prove ownership of a valid copyright and later awarded fees; Johnson sought to amend to add misappropriation and composition claims and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, while Cypress Hill sought fees and final judgment on res judicata in the Johnson II action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Johnson argues late amendment was warranted by new facts after depositions. | Cypress Hill contends delay was undue, prejudicial, and amendment futile. | No abuse; denial affirmed due to undue delay and prejudice. |
| Whether the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment | Johnson claimed lack of copyright registration deprives court of jurisdiction. | Reed Elsevier controls; registration is a precondition, not jurisdictional. | Proper jurisdiction; Reed Elsevier forecloses challenge. |
| Whether attorney's fees under § 505 were properly awarded | Johnson argues lack of jurisdiction negates fee award. | Court had jurisdiction and presumption favors fees when infringement is baseless. | Fees upheld; Johnson’s claim remained frivolous for years. |
| Whether Johnson II was barred by res judicata | Johnson contends new state-law claims were distinct from the prior action. | Claims arise from same facts and controversy; final judgment on the merits. | Barred by res judicata; Johnson II dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustmark Insurance Co. v. General & Cologne Life Re of America, 424 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend and prejudice considerations)
- Hukic v. Aurora Loan Services, 588 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (criteria for amending pleadings including prejudice and futility)
- King v. Cooke, 26 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 1994) (delay alone not enough to deny amendment; longer delay weighs against amendment)
- Methodist Medical Center of Ill. v. Hicks, 10 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir. 1993) (freely given leave to amend not automatic; factors for denial)
- Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) (delay and prejudice considerations in amendments)
- Feldman v. American Memorial Life Insurance Co., 196 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 1999) (amendment after discovery close may be prejudicial)
- Perrian v. O'Grady, 958 F.2d 192 (7th Cir. 1992) (delay in amending after discovering facts)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (registration is a precondition to filing, not jurisdictional)
- Prochotsky v. Baker & McKenzie, 966 F.2d 333 (7th Cir. 1992) (requirements for res judicata elements)
- Tartt v. Northwest Community Hospital, 453 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2006) (res judicata analysis for identity of claims and final judgment)
- Golden v. Barenborg, 53 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 1995) (definition of a core of operative facts for claims)
- Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2001) (what constitutes same cause of action for res judicata)
- Woodhaven Homes & Realty, Inc. v. Hotz, 396 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2005) (fee-shifting and prevailing party considerations under § 505)