Modu v. Notorious B.I.G. LLC

Background

Chi Modu, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Notorious B.I.G., LLC; Violetta Wallace; Faith Evans; Rick Barlowe; ByStorm Entertainment; Wayne Barrow; Tom Bennet; Republic Merchandising, Inc.; Remrylie License Group; and John and Jane Does. The dispute concerned a photograph Modu took of Christopher Wallace, the rap artist known as “The Notorious B.I.G.” Modu alleged that he copyrighted the photograph in 2006 and that the defendants knew about that copyright.

Modu alleged that licensing negotiations broke down and that the defendants then filed a baseless trademark-infringement lawsuit that defamed him and harmed his ability to obtain work. He asserted claims for defamation, unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with a contractual relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also referred to federal trademark and copyright laws.

Related California Litigation

The court said Modu’s allegations appeared to refer to a still-pending case in the Central District of California brought by Notorious B.I.G., LLC against Modu, Yes Snowboards, and the Nidecker Group. Modu had filed counterclaims in that case. The court determined that the California case and this action appeared to involve the same issues, including the validity of Modu’s copyright and the parties’ use of the photograph and related trademarks.

Under the first-filed rule, courts generally give priority to the lawsuit filed first when two lawsuits involve the same parties and issues, unless the balance of convenience or special circumstances favor the later case. The court stated that the California action appeared to have priority, but it did not transfer or dismiss this action on that basis because it first had to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases authorized by federal law. The court considered diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction.

For diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege that the parties are citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 is at stake. Modu alleged that he and Wayne Barrow were domiciled in New Jersey and said he did not know the citizenship of many other defendants. The court therefore concluded that he had not shown complete diversity of citizenship.

For federal-question jurisdiction, the claims must arise under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Although Modu invoked section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the court said he did not allege that he owned a trademark. The court also concluded that his allegations about being defamed in the California trademark lawsuit appeared to arise under state law. It further stated that Modu was not alleging copyright infringement in this action; instead, he alleged retaliation connected to licensing negotiations. The court concluded that these allegations did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Order

The court granted Modu leave to amend his complaint. The amended complaint had to include facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and details supporting each claim against each defendant, including the relevant events, dates, locations, defendants’ actions, injuries, and requested relief. The court directed Modu to provide addresses for named defendants and explained that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court ordered Modu to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-2453 (LLS). The court stated that if he did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion did not decide the merits of Modu’s underlying claims.