Wise v. Williams, 1:10-cv-02094

Florida-based plaintiffs allege copyright infringement of Starlighter by Tennessee-based Paramore members and related labels; Defendants include Hayley Williams, Josh Farro, Taylor York, Jeremy Davis, Zac Farro, Fueled by Ramen, Warner Music Group, and Atlantic Records.
Plaintiffs claim substantial similarity between Starlighter and The Only Exception (elements: introductions, arrangement, chord progression, key, melody, rhythm, tempo).
Paramore released The Only Exception in 2009; album achieved high Billboard success and was marketed nationwide, including in Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs filed Oct 8, 2010; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively for transfer.
Court analyzes specific and general jurisdiction, venue under §1400 and transfer under §1404; magistrate judge recommends transfer to the Middle District of Tennessee.
Creation/marketing activities relevant to infringement occurred in Tennessee and Pennsylvania-based activity includes distribution and online access to The Only Exception

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over defendants	Paramore purposefully directed activities in PA (advertising, performing, selling in PA)	Contacts with PA are negligible; PA is not center of gravity for infringement	Yes; PA exercises specific jurisdiction over defendants
Whether the court has general jurisdiction over defendants	Defendants’ continuous, systematic PA-related activity supports general jurisdiction	Contacts are not continuous/systematic enough for general jurisdiction	Yes; general jurisdiction established
Whether venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under §1400(a)	Venue proper where defendant may be found via personal jurisdiction	Venue challenges under §1391; improper in PA	Venue proper in PA
Whether the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee under §1404(a)	Transfer would unnecessarily burden plaintiffs; PA forum convenient	Tennessee is center of gravity; witnesses and evidence there; transfer appropriate	Transfer to the Middle District of Tennessee warranted

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair play considerations for specific jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (stream of commerce and relatedness considerations in jurisdiction)
D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) (three-factor test for specific jurisdiction)
Wellness Publ’g v. Barefoot, 128 F. App’x 266 (3d Cir. 2005) (stream-of-commerce approach in copyright context)
Amp Inc. v. Methode Electronics Inc., 823 F. Supp. 259 (M.D. Pa. 1993) (general jurisdiction where continuous sales into forum occur)
Kovatch Corp. v. Rockwood Sys. Corp., 666 F. Supp. 707 (M.D. Pa. 1986) (convenience considerations and witnesses in transfer analysis)
Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (private/public Jumara factors guiding transfer analysis)