122 F. Supp. 3d 705
M.D. Tenn.2015Background
- Plaintiff One Media IP Ltd. (UK), successor to Telos Holdings/Point Classics, claims foreign defendants SAAR (Italy) and Believe (France) distributed classical recordings (the “Catalog”) without valid licenses.
- Chain of title: recordings traced from Eastern Europe to OneMusic/Point Classics LLC (Tennessee) to Telos (Texas) and ultimately to One Media; paperwork showed irregular dissolution/assignments after 2007.
- Relevant licenses: a 2006–2009 exclusive license to a Hadaway entity (purportedly forbidding sublicensing); earlier and later sublicenses involving SAAR, MTunes (later acquired by Believe), and a 2013 Believe/SAAR worldwide sublicense for digital distribution.
- Plaintiff alleges continued online retail sales (iTunes, etc.), including a small number of downloads from Tennessee consumers, after notice of infringement; SAAR and Believe moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- Court permitted jurisdictional discovery, applied Sixth Circuit four-factor/Mohasco analysis for specific jurisdiction (purposeful availment, causation, and reasonableness), and evaluated website/stream-of-commerce principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee has specific personal jurisdiction over Believe | Believe placed Catalog into U.S. retail channels (Amazon, Google, iTunes) causing downloads in Tennessee; thus jurisdiction is proper | Believe only sublicensed to non-Tennessee retailers, delivered files outside Tennessee, had negligible Tennessee downloads, no Tennessee contacts or targeting | Dismissed — One Media failed to show purposeful availment, causation, or reasonableness for Believe |
| Whether Tennessee has specific personal jurisdiction over SAAR | SAAR sublicensed worldwide and redirected sales into Tennessee; that suffices for jurisdiction | SAAR negotiated agreements abroad, operated an Italian site that does not target Tennessee, and had no Tennessee offices, agents, or contracts | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to prove purposeful availment, causation, or reasonableness for SAAR |
| Whether stream-of-commerce (or website presence) supports jurisdiction | National/worldwide distribution via online retailers makes Tennessee a foreseeable forum for suit | Mere availability through third-party global retailers and non-targeted websites is passive/attenuated and insufficient without plus factors | Court applied Sixth Circuit’s “stream-of-commerce plus” approach and found no plus factors (direction/control, quantity, forum-specific targeting) — jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether transfer to EDNY under §1404/1406 should be granted | Plaintiff belatedly requested transfer post-discovery | Defendants objected to procedural posture and timeliness | Request denied on procedural grounds (local rule); court expressed no view on jurisdiction in New York |
Key Cases Cited
- SFS Check, LLC v. First Bank of Del., 774 F.3d 351 (6th Cir.) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden post-discovery)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ’g, 327 F.3d 472 (6th Cir.) (adopts stream‑of‑commerce plus and purposeful‑availment discussion)
- Mohasco Indus. v. Carpenter, 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir.) (three‑part test for specific jurisdiction)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (U.S.) (forum‑by‑forum personal jurisdiction inquiry)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir.) (website interactivity and Zippo sliding scale applied)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S.) (stream‑of‑commerce opinions discussing plus factors)
- Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir.) (preponderance standard after jurisdictional discovery)