Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-08760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones, Judge Furman granted reconsideration in part on timeliness but denied it in part because substantial similarity was not alleged.
Ralph W. Baker Jr. and the defendants he accused of copyright infringement, including Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi.
What happened
Ralph W. Baker Jr. sued Nikole Hannah-Jones and others under the Copyright Act, alleging that their publications and derivative works infringed his copyright. The court had dismissed the action after directing Baker to explain why it should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Baker asked the court to reconsider, arguing that his response to the court’s order was timely and that his copyright allegations were sufficient. The court agreed that the response was timely because the deadline fell on a federal holiday and the response was dated the next valid filing day. But the court found that Baker’s arguments still did not plausibly allege substantial similarity between his work and the challenged works.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Baker’s reconsideration motion in part as to timeliness and denied it in part as to the copyright-infringement allegations. The Clerk was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones · No. 1:24-cv-08760
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Ralph W. Baker Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Copyright Act against Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X. Kendi, and other defendants. Baker alleged that publications and derivative works by the defendants infringed his copyright.
On December 11, 2024, the court ordered Baker to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court initially concluded that Baker had not responded by the January 9, 2025 deadline and dismissed the action on January 15. Baker’s response was entered on the docket that same day. On January 16, the court explained that even if the response had been timely, it would not have saved the complaint because Baker had not alleged substantial similarity between his work and the allegedly infringing works.
Baker moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is a limited procedure for correcting matters the court overlooked; it is not ordinarily a way to relitigate issues or present new theories.
Timeliness
The court granted reconsideration in part on the timeliness issue. The January 9 deadline fell on a federal holiday—the National Day of Mourning for President Jimmy Carter. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, when a deadline falls on a legal holiday, the deadline continues until the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday. The court therefore concluded that Baker had until January 10 to respond. Although the response was not entered on the docket until January 15, it was dated January 10. The court agreed that the response was timely.
Copyright allegations
The court denied reconsideration in part as to whether Baker plausibly alleged copyright infringement. Baker again submitted side-by-side comparisons of selected passages from his work and the challenged works. The court concluded that those comparisons showed the works differed dramatically in total concept and overall feel, as well as in elements such as plot, themes, and pacing. The court held that Baker’s renewed arguments merely disagreed with the earlier decision and did not provide a basis for reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Baker’s motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion, identified as ECF No. 9.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.