Howard v. Pearl

Background

Jermaine Jevon Howard filed a self-represented action alleging copyright infringement and asserting that the defendants owed him copyright royalties for a song he helped write that became a hit single in 2000. The opinion identifies the defendants as Lucy Pearl/Beyond Records, Raphael Saadiq, Dawn Robinson, Ali Shaheed Muhammad, and Ugmoe Music. Howard invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Howard resides in Buffalo, New York, and that the defendants reside in Beverly Hills, California.

Venue analysis

The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Copyright claims also generally must be brought where the defendant or the defendant’s agent resides or may be found.

The court concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York. Howard did not allege that the defendants resided in that district, were subject to personal jurisdiction there, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claims occurred there.

Transfer ruling

The court also considered transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It stated that the underlying events occurred in Beverly Hills, where the defendants reside, and that Beverly Hills is in Los Angeles County, within the Central District of California. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, mail Howard a copy of the order, and record service on the docket. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Howard could proceed without prepaying fees. No summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed that court’s case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Howard permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion did not decide the merits of Howard’s copyright claims.