Harris v. Vox Media, Inc.

Background

Kadar Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Vox Media. He alleged that Vox Media misappropriated his common-law right of publicity, used his public image for commercial gain without consent, used his social-media video footage without permission, and published an editorial containing false and harmful statements about him. In particular, Harris alleged that the editorial depicted him as a “cult member” because he ate at Nobu, a restaurant described as having a “cult following.” He sought money damages.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have authority to hear cases involving a federal question or cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake.

For federal-question jurisdiction, the court found that Harris did not identify a federal cause of action and that the complaint contained no facts suggesting one. The court also noted that a person’s voice, identity, and likeness generally are not copyrightable works of authorship, citing the authorities discussed in the opinion.

For diversity jurisdiction, the court found that Harris’s complaint indicated that both Harris and Vox Media resided in New York. Because complete diversity was absent, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and denied Harris leave to replead. Judge J. Paul Oetken certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Note on the Opinion Text

The opening paragraph says the complaint was dismissed “with leave to replead,” but the later discussion and conclusion say that leave to replead was denied. This summary follows the later ruling and conclusion. The supplied case metadata identifies the judge as James Oetken, while the opinion is signed “J. Paul Oetken.”