Allen v. EK

Background

Kent Allen, representing himself, brought the action under the federal diversity-of-citizenship statute. He alleged that he developed the idea for the music-streaming site Spotify. Allen stated that, while he was in ninth grade, he discussed the future of MP3 music with Kiari Cephus and Quavious Marshall, and that he came up with the name “Spotify” after noticing a spot on his clothing. He sought money damages and credit for his alleged creation.

The court had previously allowed Allen to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion also noted that Allen had filed similar lawsuits and that, in a prior related proceeding, the court had ordered him to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional fee-free actions without first obtaining permission.

Court’s analysis

The court construed Allen’s allegations as asserting copyright infringement. It explained that copyright law protects original works of authorship and the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Allen did not allege that he created software or another tangible expression of his idea, or that he owned a copyright. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim under the Copyright Act.

The court also determined that the action was frivolous under the statute governing lawsuits filed without paying the filing fee. It found that the claim lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and described Allen’s allegation that he created the idea for Spotify in ninth grade as wholly implausible, particularly in light of his other complaints.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. The court declined to allow Allen to amend because it concluded that amendment would be futile. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Allen permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Allen a copy of the order and record service on the docket.