Martino v. The Orchard Enterprises Inc

Background

Anthony Martino sued The Orchard Enterprises, Inc., Independent Online Distribution Alliance, Inc. (IODA), and Medianet, Inc. He alleged copyright infringement and unjust enrichment against all defendants, and conversion against Orchard Enterprises and IODA. He claimed that the defendants reproduced, distributed, licensed, or otherwise handled recordings from his albums without authorization and wrongfully obtained royalties connected to his songs.

Martino alleged that the music reached third-party retailers and online services, including two retailers located in Illinois. He also alleged that Orchard Enterprises and IODA conducted other business in Illinois, including entering contracts with Illinois-based people or entities and offering employment opportunities there. Martino represented himself in the case.

Motions and jurisdiction

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. In the alternative, they moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). After the motions were briefed, Martino filed a Third Amended Complaint. The parties agreed that the jurisdiction and venue issues had not changed and that the court could decide the pending motions before the defendants answered the newest complaint.

The court held that general personal jurisdiction was absent because the defendants were not incorporated or headquartered in Illinois and their alleged contacts with the state were not sufficiently continuous and extensive to make them effectively based there.

The court also held that Martino had not shown specific personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the defendants’ own deliberate contacts with the forum and the claims. The court found that the alleged distribution through third-party retailers did not show that the defendants themselves targeted Illinois consumers. It also found that Martino’s own purchases or downloads of his music in Illinois could not supply the required connection, and that his communications with a third party that later contacted Orchard Enterprises were too indirect. The alleged Illinois employment and contracting activity was also unrelated to the copyright claims.

Venue

For the copyright claims, the court applied the copyright venue statute and concluded that venue was improper because the defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois. For the conversion and unjust-enrichment claims, the court concluded that none of the statutory venue grounds applied: the defendants did not reside in the district, the defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction there, and Martino had not alleged that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there.

Disposition

The opinion states that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted because the court lacked personal jurisdiction and that the motion to transfer venue was granted. In its conclusion, the court granted the defendants’ motions to transfer venue and directed the clerk to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for all further proceedings. The court did not decide the merits of Martino’s copyright, conversion, or unjust-enrichment claims.