Wright v. Spindletop Films, L.L.C.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135414
S.D. Tex.2011Background
- Wright, a documentary filmmaker, is involved in a dispute with Spindletop Films, LLC over ownership of film footage and related rights.
- Spindletop formed to develop, produce, and promote a film; Wright expected to create the film with Spindletop funding and shared ownership.
- No written contract exists between Wright and Spindletop.
- Spindletop alleged ownership of the film and its footage in state court, including six causes of action: TTLA-based theft, conversion, fraud, and breach of contract.
- Wright removed the state case to federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction over copyright ownership; the court later concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Wright’s copyright declaratory judgment claim. | Wright argues an actual controversy exists due to copyright dispute signals in state court. | Spindletop contends no sufficiently immediate and real controversy exists. | No jurisdiction; controversy not sufficiently immediate or real to be justiciable. |
| Whether the declaratory-judgment action is ripe under MedImmune and related standards. | Controversy is real based on state court filings and pre-suit demands. | Threats alone are insufficient without immediacy; not ripe. | Not ripe; declaratory judgment not appropriate. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-copyright claims if copyright jurisdiction is lacking. | Narrowly seeks ancillary relief related to ownership and debts. | If no copyright jurisdiction exists, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised. | Declined; dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (test for declaratory judgments: substantial controversy with immediacy and reality)
- Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2000) (three-step test for declaratory actions; ripeness and controversy sufficiency)
- Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2009) (actual controversy must be sufficiently immediate and real)
- Starter Corp. v. Converse, 84 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1996) (distance between action and use of marks in declaratory context; immediacy)
- Texas v. West Pub. Co., 882 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1989) (pre-MedImmune standard for actual controversy in IP context)
- Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap A/S v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (subject-matter jurisdiction standards; generic rule for dismissal)