Somerson v. McMahon
956 F. Supp. 2d 1345
N.D. Ga.2012Background
- Plaintiff Somerson sued WWE, Vincent and Linda McMahon in Georgia state court asserting six claims over use of his name and likeness in merchandise.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting federal question/diversity jurisdiction; later the court determined diversity jurisdiction.
- McMahon defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, and failure to state a claim.
- Court dismissed McMahon defendants without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and service; negligent supervision claim dismissed with them.
- WWE moved to dismiss remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6); court analyzed preemption and adequacy of pleadings across several claims.
- Court directed plaintiff to amend complaint with a more definite statement regarding other merchandise and required certificates of interested persons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction and service over McMahon defendants | McMahon lacked Georgia contacts; service improper. | McMahon had no Georgia contacts; proper service lacking. | Lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service; dismissals without prejudice. |
| Whether right of publicity and invasion of privacy claims are preempted by the Copyright Act | Rights not preempted; ownership and consent facts unresolved; discovery possible. | Claims preempted as they duplicate copyright protections in video recordings. | Preempted; dismissal of privacy and publicity claims related to DVDs/video recordings. |
| Unauthorized use of intellectual property claim | Rights to use plaintiff’s intellectual property were violated. | No clear Georgia-law tort; pleadings too vague. | Dismissed as unclear and not plausible on its face. |
| Unjust enrichment claim viability | WWE benefited from plaintiff’s work without royalties. | Unjust enrichment is an alternative theory to contract and not supported here. | Dismissed; not properly pleaded as an independent theory. |
| GUDTPA claim viability | WWE engaged in deceptive trade practices causing damages. | Monetary relief not authorized under GUDTPA; pleadings too conclusory. | Dismissed; monetary relief unavailable and plaintff failed to plead § 10-1-372 violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir.1997) (binding rule that a defendant must be within court's jurisdiction)
- Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F.2d 489 (11th Cir.1988) (burden on plaintiff to show prima facie jurisdiction)
- Nat'l Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir.1997) (copyright protection for broadcasts; events themselves not copyrightable)
- Lipscher v. LRP Publ’ns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.2001) (two-part preemption test for copyright preemption)
- Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir.1986) (preemption discussions in publicity rights context)
- Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.2010) (preemption analysis applicable to actor’s right of publicity)