Rennie v. Top View / Go New York Tours / South East Personnel

Background

David Rennie filed the case in New York Supreme Court, New York County, and later filed an amended complaint. He represented himself. The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, identifying itself as Go New York Tours Inc. doing business as TopView Sightseeing.

Rennie alleged that the defendant wrongfully terminated his employment after accusing him of smoking near a commercial vehicle. He also alleged that he was not promoted to a trainer, was terminated without union representation, and was accused based on fabricated evidence. In addition, he alleged that he gave the defendant a more-than-20-page safety manual draft for review, but the defendant did not return it despite his requests.

The amended complaint asserted four causes of action: wrongful termination, discrimination, “theft by deception” involving the safety manual, and falsifying business records. Rennie sought damages, continued employment, an apology, and limits on whom he could contact at the company.

Removal and Remand

Rennie moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The defendant argued that the safety-manual claim created federal-question jurisdiction because it was a copyright claim or was completely preempted by federal copyright law. The defendant also argued that the court could hear the remaining state-law claims because they arose from the same events.

The court explained that the party removing a case from state court must establish federal jurisdiction. It also explained that federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the claims appearing in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, not on a defense or on a federal issue the defendant believes the complaint could have raised.

The court considered whether the safety-manual claim was subject to statutory preemption. Under that doctrine, a state-law claim can be treated as arising under federal copyright law when it concerns a copyrightable work and asserts rights equivalent to copyright’s rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or create derivative works.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the safety manual was a work of authorship, but Rennie was not asserting rights equivalent to copyright rights. The court read Rennie’s complaint and motion as asserting a right to exclusive possession and control of the physical copy of the manual after the defendant allegedly kept it. That type of claim concerns possession of a tangible object and is a conversion claim, not a copyright claim concerning copying, distribution, or display of the work’s contents.

The court rejected the argument that Rennie’s self-represented status required the complaint to be interpreted as asserting the strongest possible federal claim. The court stated that it would not find federal jurisdiction even if the complaint had been filed by a represented party, particularly because Rennie clearly disclaimed any intent to assert copyright rights.

Because the complaint did not raise a federal claim and the safety-manual claim was not preempted, the court concluded that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted Rennie’s motion to remand. It directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and to terminate all pending motions. The court declined to award Rennie sanctions. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the memorandum and order on April 14, 2023.