361 F. Supp. 3d 869
D. Me.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (the Prince Estate) sued multiple defendants alleging tortious interference, indirect copyright infringement, and sought declaratory relief related to distribution of Prince Recordings; Brown & Rosen, LLC (B & R), an out-of-state law firm, was named in the third amended complaint.
- Plaintiffs allege B & R advised clients and provided an opinion letter that encouraged distribution of the Recordings; some purchasers of the recordings were Minnesota residents.
- B & R moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing its contacts with Minnesota (emails, phone calls, an opinion letter, and advising out-of-state clients) were insufficient.
- Defendants (Boxill, Deliverance, RMA, Wilson, Staley) asserted a counterclaim alleging Plaintiffs tortiously interfered with contracts and prospective economic advantage by misrepresenting a Confidentiality Agreement and a TRO to business partners (e.g., Apple, Amazon).
- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6); the court evaluated whether the counterclaims plausibly pleaded required elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota has specific personal jurisdiction over B & R | B & R’s opinion letter, emails, calls, and the downstream distribution of recordings had effects in Minnesota and therefore support jurisdiction | B & R never directly sold in Minnesota, did not solicit business there, and its communications were to out-of-state clients/recipients, so contacts are random/attenuated | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; contacts insufficient (no purposeful availment) |
| Whether Calder intentional-tort (effects) test applies | B & R intentionally allowed circulation of the opinion letter knowing it would harm the Minnesota-based Estate | B & R’s conduct was targeted at out-of-state recipients; any effects in Minnesota are insufficient without additional targeted contacts | Calder inapplicable; passive circulation and downstream acts do not establish Calder-based jurisdiction |
| Whether counterclaim for tortious interference with contracts is adequately pleaded | Defendants allege Plaintiffs’ misrepresentations caused partners to cease dealings (interference with contractual relations) | Plaintiffs argue no actual contract with specific business partners was pleaded—only negotiations/agreements in principle | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege existence of an actual contract |
| Whether counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage is adequately pleaded | Defendants allege a reasonable expectation of advantage (e.g., top pre-order status on iTunes/Amazon), Plaintiffs knew and intentionally interfered, and acted in bad faith | Plaintiffs argue lack of identified specific third parties and that enforcement of IP rights justified their conduct | Survives motion to dismiss; allegations identify specific partners (Apple, Amazon) and sufficiently plead independently tortious interference (bad-faith misrepresentations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (random, fortuitous, and attenuated contacts do not satisfy first minimum-contacts factor)
- Nash Finch Co. v. Preston, 867 F. Supp. 866 (D. Minn. 1994) (out-of-state lawyer’s opinion letter to Minnesota client did not support jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (mere stream-of-commerce contacts are insufficient for jurisdiction without additional acts)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., 97 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 1996) (quantity of contacts alone cannot supply jurisdiction absent other forum-directed activities)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts directed at forum require that defendant expressly aimed conduct at forum and caused harm primarily suffered there)
- Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Div., Inc. v. IDCA, Inc., 844 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. 2014) (elements for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and requirement to identify source of expected business)