buday v ny yankees part

8/3/2019 Buday v NY Yankees Part

1/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK---------- - -----------------------XTANIT BUDAY,

P l a i n t i f f ,- aga ins t - 11 Civ. 2628 (DAB)

ORDERNEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP,

Defendant .------------------------------------xDEBORAH A. BATTS, United Sta tes D i s t r i c t Judge.Now be fore th e Cour t i s Defendant ' s Motion to Dismiss the

F i r s t Amended Complaint . Because th e Cour t concludes t ha t itl acks sub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on , t h i s mat te r i s DISMISSED ini t s e n t i r e ty .

I . BACKGROUNDThe fo l lowing f ac t s a re drawn from th e F i r s t Amended

Complaint ("Compl.") and are assumed t rue fo r purposes of theMotion now be fore the Court .

P l a i n t i f f T ani t Buday ( "Pla in t i f f " o r "Buday") i s the n ieceof Kenneth Timur ("Timur") , who i s now deceased b u t whoprevious ly res ided in Brooklyn, New York. (Compl. 8-9 . ) Timur,a graph ic i l l u s t r a t o r with exper t i s e in he ra ld ry , c a l l i g raphy ,l e t t e r i ng , and car tooning, had a s i s t e r , Ste l l a , who was amanicur i s t . (Compl. 10-11.) Ste l l a counted Jacob Ruppert("Ruppert") and Del Webb ("Webb"), who were then the owners o fth e New York Yankees baseba l l f ranchise , among he r customers .

I

Case 1:11-cv-02628-DAB Document 19 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 10


2/10

(Compl. , 12.) UIn 1936, Mr. Rupper t t o ld Ste l l a t h a t theYankees needed someone with f resh ideas to c rea t e a new logo fo rthe Yankees." (Compl. , 13.) Ste l l a t o ld Mr. Rupper t about herbro the r . (Compl. , 14) . Though Timur was l i v ing i n Europe a t thet ime, Rupper t , on beha l f of the Yankees, commissioned Timur toc rea t e a logo ( the ULogo"). (Compl. " 18, 15 . ) The re su l t ingLogo, which inc luded a top h a t and ba t , was es s en t i a l l y s im i l a rto the top ha t logo cu r ren t ly in use by the Yankees. (Compl. "16-17.) Ste l l a , on beha l f of Timur, pre sen ted the Logo toRuppert , who accepted it on beha l f o f the Yankees. (Compl. , 18.)However, Timur was no t pa id o r otherwise recognized fo r h isc rea t ion of the Logo. (Compl. , 18.) In f ac t , Timur remainedunaware t h a t the Yankees were using h is Logo u n t i l he emigratedto New York City some e leven years l a t e r , in 1947. 1 (Compl. ,19.)

In 1946, Webb, on beha l f o f the Yankees, commissioned Timurto rev i se the Logo i n an t i c ipa t ion of the f ac t t ha t the Yankeeswould ce leb ra te t h e i r f i f t i e t h yea r in New York s ix years l a t e r ,in 1952. 2 (Compl. , 20.) Timur was uniquely qua l i f i ed fo r such a

1Pla in t i f f does no t expla in why Ste l l a d id no t communicatethe good news concerning th e Yankees ' acceptance o f the Logo toher bro the r , as would seem l og ica l given t h a t she arranged thea l leged business re l a t ionsh ip between Timur and the Yankees.

2Pla in t i f f does not a t tempt to r econc i le the f ac t t ha t Timurwas ignorant u n t i l 1947 t h a t th e Yankees were using h is Logo withthe f ac t t ha t i n 1946 he was commissioned by the Yankees to

2



3/10

commission; indeed, " [o]n ly the hera ld Timur had th e exper t i s e torevi.se the Yankees' 'crest ' so the Yankees had to come back tohim." (Compl. 25.) Timur created a second ve rs ion o f the Logofo r the Yankees in 1947. (Compl. 26.) Among o ther newf ea tu res , t h i s vers ion was "s igned" by Timur, who subs t i tu t ed h iss ignature l e t t e r "P" for the numeral "9" so t ha t the da te 1903 onthe Logo appeared as " lP03 . " (Compl. 27-31.) In 1947, Timurtook h is revised Logo to the Yankees and showed it to them.

(Compl. 46.) Timur agreed to t r a ns f e r the Logo to th e Yankees,who in tu rn "agreed to remunerate and recognize Timur" fo r theLogo. (Compl. , 47.)

The Yankees never recognized o r remunerated Timur during h isl i f e t ime . (E.g . , Compl. " 48, 58.) Sometime during th e 1960s,"and a f t e r Timur had l o s t h is conf idence and t r u s t in theYankees, [Timur] t o ld P l a i n t i f f t ha t h is c la ims aga ins t theYankees now belonged to h er in th e hope t ha t she would pursuethem." (Compl. , 60.) As Timur 'S ass ignee , P l a i n t i f f br ingsclaims fo r v io la t ion of common-law copyr ight (Count One); unjus tenr ichment (Count Two); conversion (Count Three) ; breach ofcon t rac t (Count Four) ; quantum merui t (Count Five) ; breach o ff iduc ia ry duty (Count Six) ; and account ing (Count Seven) .

r ev i se t h a t same Logo.3



4/10

(Compl. 57-117.)P l a i n t i f f f i l ed her o r i g i n a l Complaint in t h i s mat te r on

Apri l 18, 2011. (Docket #1.) That Complaint invoked t h i s Cour t ' ssub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on on th e grounds of d ive r s i t y ofc i t i zensh ip pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. (Docket #1 a t 6 .)

On May 18, 2011, Defendant f i l ed a Motion to Dismiss whiche f f e c t i v e l y showed t ha t Pa r t i e s a re no t completely diverse s ince ,perhaps unsurp r i s ing ly , the genera l and l imi ted pa r tne r s in the

New York Yankees Par tne rsh ip and its subs id ia ry en t i t i e s inc ludea number o f New York-domiciled ind iv idua l s . (See Docket # 8 .)Rather than oppose the Motion to Dismiss , P l a i n t i f f t imely f i l edthe F i r s t Amended Complaint , which again a l leges d i v e r s i t yj u r i s d i c t i on , (Compl. 6, 7 ) , bu t a lso a t tempts to invoke t h i sCour t ' s f ede ra l sub jec t ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) . (Compl. 7 .) Defendants f i l ed the i n s t a n tMotion to Dismiss on July 8, 2011. (Docket # 12.)

I I . JURISDICTIONUnder th e Federa l Rules , if a cour t "de te rmines a t any t ime

t h a t it l acks sub jec t -ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i on , the cour t must dismissthe ac t ion . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (h) (3) ; accord Cave v . E. MeadowUnion Free School D i s t . , 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir . 2008) ( " I f acour t pe rce ives a t any s t a t e of th e proceedings t h a t it l acks

4



5/10

sub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on , then it must t ake prope r no t ice ofth e defec t by dismiss ing the a c t ion . " ) .

P l a i n t i f f has no t opposed Defendant ' s i n i t i a l Motion toDismiss , which e f fec t ive ly showed t ha t both P l a i n t i f f andDefendant are c i t i z e ns of New York. Accordingly, d ive r s i t yju r i s d i c t i on w i l l no t l i e pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.

Pla in t i f f a l so a l l eges sub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) . Sect ion 1331 provides t ha t the

Udis t r i c t cour t s s ha l l have o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i on of a l l c i v i lact ions a r i s i n g under the Cons t i tu t ion , laws, o r t r ea t i e s of theUnited St a t e s . " 28 U.S.C. 1331. Sec t ion 1338(a) provides t ha tthe d i s t r i c t cour ts s ha l l have exc lus ive j u r i s d i c t i on over Uanyc i v i l ac t ion a r i s ing under any Act of Congress r e l a t i ng tocopyr igh t s . " 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) .

Afte r the passage of the 1909 Copyright Act and p r i o r topromulgat ion o f the 1976 Copyright Act , an au thor could c la im acommon-law proper ty r i gh t , sometimes termed a common-lawcopyr ight , to prevent o the rs from exp lo i t ing an unpubl ished work.Shoptalk , Ltd . v . Concorde-New Horizons Corp. , 168 F.3d 586 (2dCir . 1999) (examining h i s to ry o f s ta tu tory and common-lawpro tec t ions a f t e r passage o f 1909 Copyright Act and beforepassage o f 1976 Copyright Act) . By con t ras t , s ta tu tory copyr ightpro tec t ion during t h a t per iod was only ava i lab le if th e works

5

IIi I



6/10

were "publ ished" within the meaning of th e 1909 Copyright Act . It i s w e l l - s e t t l e d t ha t common-law copyr ight fo l lowingpassage of the 1909 Copyright Act was governed by s t a t e , no tf edera l , common law. Olive i r a v. Fr i to-Lay, In c . , 251 F.3d56, 64 n.2 (2d Cir . 2001) ( ident i fy ing a pp l i c a b i l i t y o fcommon-law copyr i gh t to recording made p r i o r to passage ofappl icable copyr ight s t a t u t e as unresolved ques t ion of s t a t elaw); Bal t imore Orioles , Inc . v. Major League Basebal l Players

Assln , 805 F.2d 663, 674 n.20 (7 th Cir . 1986) ("Before theCopyright Act o f 1976 became e f f e c t i v e , the re had been a dualsystem of f ede ra l s t a t u t o ry and s t a t e common-law copyr ightpro tec t ion in e f f e c t i n th e United Sta tes s ince th e f i r s tcopyr ight s t a t u t e in 1790.") (c i t a t ions omi t t ed ) ; Stevens v .Gladding, 58 U.S. 447, 45 4 (1854) ("There being no common law o fcopyr ight in t h i s coun t ry , whatever [ federa l ] r i gh t s arepossessed by the propr ie to r of th e copyr ight must be der ived fromsome gran t the reo f , in some a c t o f congress , e i t h e r nominatim o rby a s a t i s f a c to r y im p l i c a t i o n . " ) ; Wheaton v . Pete r s , 33 U.S. 59 1(1834) (explaining t h a t common-law copyr ight or ig ina tes in s t a t e ,no t federa l , common law, s ince " [ i ] t i s c l e a r , the re can be nocommon law of the uni ted S ta tes" ) .

Here, P l a i n t i f f expre ss ly a l leges t h a t she possesses acommon-law copyr ight r a t h e r than a s t a t u t o ry copyr ight , and t ha t

6

II



7/10

ne i the r Timur nor P l a i n t i f f has ever publ i shed the Logo. (Compl. 62. 60.) P l a i n t i f f ' s copyriqht claim, to the extent i t i scognizable a t a l l , thus a r i s e s under s t a t e r a t h e r than f ede ra llaw. 3 Accordingly , t h i s Cour t ' s sub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on w i l lnot l i e under 28 U.S.C. 1331, as no federa l ques t ion i spresen t . Simi la r ly , because P l a i n t i f f ' s copyr ight claim i sexpress ly brought as a common-law c la im, it does no t a r i s e underany Act of Congress re la t ing to copyr ight and j u r i s d i c t i on w i l l

no t l i e under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) . Wells v . Universa l Pic tu resCo. , 166 F.2d 690 (2d Cir . 1948) .

Because t h i s Cour t l acks sub jec t -mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on , t h i sac t ion must be DISMISSED in i t s e n t i r e t y .

Moreover, i f th e Cour t were to have j u r i s d i c t i on over t h i smat te r , it would f ind t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s F i r s t Amended Complaintu t t e r l y f a i l s to s t a t e a claim upon which r e l i e f may be gran ted .A ll of P l a i n t i f f ' s non-copyright c la ims have been barred by theappl icable s t a tu t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n fo r over h a l f a century .P l a i n t i f f ' s argument t ha t equi table es toppe l app l ies to t o l l th es t a tu t e s of l i m i t a t i o n because the Yankees somehow concealed th eLogo's provenance from the Logo's own c rea to r i s l aughable .

3The Cour t notes t h a t common-law copyr ight pro tec t ion wasabrogated , in its e n t i r e ty , by the Copyright Act o f 1976, whichpreempts a l l s t a t e laws governing sub jec t ma t t e r wi th i n the scopeof t ha t Act . 17 U.S.C.A. 301.

7



8/10

As to her copyr ight claim, P l a i n t i f f a t tempts to a l lege av i o l a t i o n o f common-law copyr ight desp i te the f ac t t ha t a l l suchac t ions were preempted in t h e i r e n t i r e ty by th e Copyright Act o f1976, 17 U.S.C.A. 301. Moreover, even if a common law ac t ionremained v iab le , P l a i n t i f f has a l leged f ac t s showing t ha t theLogo was commissioned by the Yankees; t h a t Timur t r a n s f e r r e d th eLogo to th e Yankees; and t ha t th e Yankees pub l i shed th e Logo bydisplaying it to a subs tan t i a l number o f members of the genera l

publ ic as p a r t of the Yankees uniform, among o ther p laces . Thesef ac t s , t aken as t rue , are l og ica l ly incompat ib le with P l a i n t i f f ' sclaim to a r i g h t o f e x c lu s iv i t y in th e Logo as an unpubl ishedwork - th e common-law proper ty r i g h t which, p r i o r to beingabrogated by th e 1976 Copyright Act , was sometimes r e f e r r e d to asa common-law copyr ight .

Converse ly , if th e Cour t were to ignore P l a i n t i f f ' sa l l ega t ions to the cont ra ry and const rue h e r copyr ight c la im asone seeking recovery fo r copyr ight in f r ingement under th e 1909Copyright Act, which would br ing it within th e Cour t ' s sub jec tmat te r j u r i s d i c t i on , it would f ind t h a t th e f ac t s on th e face o fP l a i n t i f f ' s compla int show t h a t th e Logo i s no longer pro tec tedby copyr i gh t . The 1909 Copyright Act prov ided authors wi th ani n i t i a l 28-year term o f pro tec t ion , ca lcu la ted from the da te o fpub l ica t ion , which cou ld be renewed fo r one add i t iona l term of 28

8



9/10

yea rs . See 17 U.S.C. 24 ( repealed e f fec t ive 1978). It appearsfrom the face of the Complaint t ha t the Logo was publ i shed,within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act , no l a t e r than 1936.(See Compl. a t Ex. A-1 (\\Logo In Use s ince 1 9 3 6 " . Copyrightpro tec t ion under the 1909 Copyright Act would the re fo re haveexpi red no l a t e r than 1964, absent renewal , and no l a t e r than1992, if renewal had been sought and rece ived . However,p l a i n t i f f a l l eges t ha t Timur t r a n s f e r r e d whatever copyr ight

i n t e re s t s he possessed in the Logo to her "dur ing the 1960s"(Compl. 64, 67-68) a f t e r f a i l i ng to pursue them on h is ownbeha l f (Compl. 33); t ha t P l a i n t i f f d id not begin heri nves t iga t ion in to th e Logo in earnes t u n t i l 1995 (Compl. 36);and t ha t P l a i n t i f f f ina l ly sought and was re fused copyr ightr eg i s t r a t i on in 2007, (Compl. 7 ). Accordingly , if P l a i n t i f f ' scopyr ight c la im were i n t e rp re t ed as a r i s ing under the 1909Copyright Act r a the r than under common law, t ha t c la im, too ,would be sub jec t to dismissa l based on P l a i n t i f f ' s owna l l ega t ions .

I I I . CONCLUSIONP l a i n t i f f ' s F i r s t Amended Complaint , which appears to be

en t i r e l y wi thout mer i t , i s DISMISSED as ou t s ide t h i s Cour t ' ssub jec t mat te r j u r i s d i c t i on .

9



10/10

The Clerk i s di rec t ed to c lose the docket in t h i s case .

SO ORDERED.Dated: New York, New York

October AD , 2011Deborah A. Bat t s

United Sta t e s D i s t r i c t Judge

10


buday v ny yankees part

Documents