Baker v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

Background

The opinion describes a putative class action brought by Baker, a musician proceeding without a lawyer, against the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI). The case was originally filed in the District of Arizona. That court dismissed most claims and transferred the case to the Southern District of New York. This court later severed one claim and transferred it to another judge as related to a case involving a consent decree between the United States and BMI.

Two claims remained: a request for a declaration that ASCAP and BMI owe a fiduciary duty to class members because of their role as contractual licensors of songwriters’ music, and a claim for damages based on an alleged breach of that duty. The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court did not reach the defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). It first examined subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. The earlier court had found federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, which can cover certain class actions involving minimal diversity and more than $5 million in controversy.

The court explained that the operative complaint did not establish the required minimal diversity because Baker alleged only that he “resides in California.” Residence does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. The court stated that Baker had to properly allege that he was a citizen of a state different from BMI. The court also noted that ASCAP is an unincorporated membership organization with members in all fifty states and therefore could not be diverse from Baker on the information before the court.

Class Claims and Individual Claims

The defendants also argued, without opposition from Baker, that a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot bring claims on behalf of other people. The court said that courts generally bar people representing themselves from serving as class representatives because they cannot adequately represent the interests of absent class members. The court did not make a final ruling on that issue in this order.

The court further explained that, if the class claims were dismissed, it might construe the remaining counts as individual claims. That possibility created another jurisdictional question because the Class Action Fairness Act might be the only basis for federal jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether it could or should retain jurisdiction over any individual claims.

Order

The court ordered Baker to file, within three weeks of April 5, 2023, a sworn declaration of no more than three pages attesting to his citizenship and showing why the court can and should exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The defendants could file a response of no more than three pages one week later. The court stated that it would dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Baker did not file anything by the deadline.

The court directed the clerk to terminate the defendants’ dismissal motion and mail Baker a copy of the opinion and order. The order did not grant or deny the dismissal motion on the merits.