Kee v. The Detroit Lions, Inc.

Background

Allan Kee, a professional sports photographer, alleged that defendants used a photograph he took of Barry Sanders, who had played for the Detroit Lions. The alleged uses included creating and unveiling a statue outside Ford Field in Detroit, publishing a video about the statue, and providing a copy of the photograph to Highland Mint for a memorabilia product. Kee asserted various copyright claims against the Detroit Lions in his First Amended Complaint.

The Detroit Lions moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court addressed whether New York courts could exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over the Lions.

General Personal Jurisdiction

General personal jurisdiction allows a defendant to be sued in a state on all claims. The court explained that a corporation ordinarily is subject to general jurisdiction where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, unless the case is an exceptional one. Kee’s complaint did not allege that the Lions were incorporated in New York or maintained their principal place of business there.

Kee relied on the Lions’ business relationships with the National Football League and NFL entities that operate from New York. He also pointed to the Lions’ transactions in New York, representatives’ attendance at New York meetings, and agreements handled by the NFL. The court held that these contacts did not make the Lions essentially at home in New York. It also agreed that the NFL’s separate New York contacts could not be attributed to the Lions through an agency theory. The court therefore declined to exercise general jurisdiction.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Specific personal jurisdiction permits a court to hear claims connected to a defendant’s purposeful activities in the forum state. The court analyzed New York’s long-arm statute, particularly the provision covering transactions of business in New York. That provision requires both a New York business transaction and a substantial connection between that transaction and the claim.

The court found that Kee presented evidence of the Lions’ New York business transactions generally, but not evidence that the alleged infringement occurred in New York or arose from those transactions. Kee argued that the Lions could be contributorily or vicariously liable for the alleged infringement by other defendants, including Fanatics and Dick’s Sporting Goods. The court determined that this theory was too attenuated. It also explained that contacts belonging to other parties, rather than conduct by the Lions connecting them to New York, could not establish the required minimum contacts.

Disposition

The court granted the Detroit Lions’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the First Amended Complaint as to the Detroit Lions for want of personal jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the Lions as a defendant. The opinion’s conclusion does not state a separate disposition of the improper-venue argument.