Howard v. 3,6 Mafia

Background

Jermaine Jevon Howard, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a copyright action against 3, 6 Mafia; Paul Duane Beauregard (DJ Paul); Darnell Carlton (Crunchy Black); Jordan Michael Houston (Juicy J); Sony Music/Hypnotized Minds; Rae Sremmurd; and Ear Druma Records/Interscope Records. Howard alleged that he wrote a chorus in 1994, agreed that he would receive royalties if the group used it, and later saw songs released in 2005 and 2018 using the recording. He alleged that he had not received royalties and sought monetary damages for use of his lyrics.

The court had previously allowed Howard to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for such cases, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also discussed the requirement that a complaint contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Copyright Claims

The court explained that a copyright-infringement claim generally requires facts identifying the specific original works, showing that the plaintiff owns the copyrights, showing that the copyrights were preregistered or registered with the United States Copyright Office, and identifying how and when the defendant infringed them.

The court held that Howard had not alleged facts showing ownership of the copyrights at issue or preregistration or registration. It granted Howard leave to allege those facts and encouraged him to attach documents supporting ownership and registration.

Venue and Jurisdiction

The court explained that copyright claims must be brought in a district where the defendant or the defendant’s agent resides or may be found. Howard provided California addresses for Rae Sremmurd and Ear Druma Records/Interscope Records but did not allege facts showing that those defendants conducted business in the Southern District of New York. The court therefore granted Howard leave to add facts explaining why that district was a proper venue for claims against those defendants.

Howard also checked the form indicating that diversity of citizenship was a basis for federal jurisdiction. The opinion did not resolve that asserted basis of jurisdiction at this stage.

Contract Claim

Because Howard alleged that he signed an agreement promising royalties if the chorus was used, and that the defendants failed to pay after using it, the court interpreted those allegations as a possible state-law breach-of-contract claim. The court declined to consider that claim at that time. It said it would later decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—federal court authority to hear a related state-law claim—because it was not clear that Howard could state a valid federal copyright claim.

Disposition

The court granted Howard 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to provide the facts supporting each claim and explain why the Southern District of New York was a proper venue for the claims against Rae Sremmurd and Ear Druma Records/Interscope Records. It would replace the original complaint, so Howard had to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Howard failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.