Sibanda v. Elison

Background

Kissinger N. Sibanda, who is a lawyer and represented himself, sued companies and individuals involved in the 2019 movie Gemini Man. He alleged that the movie infringed his copyright in his 2011 novel, The Return to Gibraltar. He also sued under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a criminal statute, alleging that the defendants conspired to deprive him of a legal remedy by filing a declaratory-judgment action in the Central District of California.

Before this case, certain defendants had filed that California action seeking a declaration that Gemini Man did not infringe Sibanda’s rights. The California action was voluntarily dismissed after Sibanda challenged personal jurisdiction. Sibanda then filed this case. His First Amended Complaint asserted copyright infringement against the defendants other than Ashlee Lin and asserted the Section 241 claim against all defendants. Fosun Pictures, Inc. had not been served and had not appeared.

Motions to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

The court dismissed the copyright claim because Sibanda did not allege that he had registered the copyright before filing the lawsuit. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires registration or preregistration before a civil infringement action involving a United States work is filed. The court concluded that The Return to Gibraltar was a United States work because the book stated that it was published in the United States, and Sibanda’s later registration identified the United States as the nation of first publication. The court held that the registration obtained after the lawsuit began could not cure the failure to register beforehand.

The court dismissed the Section 241 claim because Section 241 is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action, meaning that a private plaintiff cannot use it to sue for damages or other relief. The court also held that the claim rested on the incorrect premise that the California action prevented Sibanda from pursuing his copyright claim elsewhere or as a counterclaim. The court characterized the claim as frivolous.

The court denied Sibanda’s request for leave to amend. It concluded that proposed amendments replacing the Section 241 claim with a civil-conspiracy claim or adding an unjust-enrichment claim would be futile. The court stated that the proposed conspiracy claim would fail for the same reason as the Section 241 claim and that the proposed unjust-enrichment claim would be preempted by the Copyright Act.

Sanctions

The defendants also moved for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 requires a person who submits a pleading or motion to have a reasonable basis for the filing and prohibits filings made for an improper purpose, such as harassment.

The court granted the sanctions motions. It found that Sibanda’s Section 241 claim was unsupported by existing law, lacked evidentiary support, and was frivolous. The court also found that he brought the claim against Lin for the improper purpose of harassing her and interfering with the defendants’ choice of counsel. The court ordered Sibanda to reimburse the defendants for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing and defending the sanctions motions. The defendants were directed to submit a joint fee application within thirty days, and Sibanda was allowed two weeks to respond.

Disposition

The court granted all defendants’ motions, dismissed the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, and entered judgment for the defendants. Count One, the copyright claim, was dismissed without prejudice to filing a new action, although a new action would not relate back to the original filing date. Count Two, the Section 241 claim, was dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed the claims against Fosun Pictures, Inc., even though Fosun had not been served or appeared. The court denied Sibanda’s requests to file sur-replies, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and ordered the sanctions-related reimbursement described above.