As set forth in the decision denying the motion, the facts of the dispute were as follows:
On March 30, 2008, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. entered an Orlando, Florida arena hosting WrestleMania 24 to the song “Yep,” a composition that Dash contends violates his copyright in a musical track entitled “TONY GUNZ BEAT.” WrestleMania 24 took place before a live audience of 75,000 and a pay-per-view and television audience of over one million. Dash represents that untold numbers of WWE enthusiasts and Mayweather fans have purchased the Wrestlemania 24 DVD, and viewed clips of Yep on YouTube.com. Dash alleges that WrestleMania 24 was advertised and broadcast in South Carolina, and purchased on pay-per-view by South Carolina residents. Dash also alleges that South Carolina consumers have purchased WrestleMania 24 DVDs at brick-and-mortar retail stores in South Carolina as well as online stores (in which case the DVDs were shipped to South Carolina). On August 24, 2009, Mayweather guest-hosted a WWE event entitled “RAW” in Nevada, at which Yep again accompanied Mayweather’s entrance to the arena. Dash alleges that RAW, and the infringing content therein, was advertised, broadcast, consumed on pay-per-view, and purchased on DVD by residents of South Carolina in South Carolina.In its legal analysis, the Court details the relevant law concerning personal jurisdiction over "foreign" corporations and concludes that copyright infringement is a tort and so the "effects" test should be applied to determine whether there is personal jurisdiction over the Mayweather defendants. The Court analyzes whether there are "minimum contacts" with South Carolina sufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Mayweather defendants.
In this regard, the Court specifically notes as follows:
The court also notes that Ellerbe simultaneously proclaims knowledge of the creation of Yep, while failing to disclaim knowledge of the copyrighted track allegedly contained therein. Also, while the broadcast of Wrestlemania 24 was directed at a national audience, the tortious broadcast had but a single recipient in a single location. The court finds the allegation of knowledge of Dash’s copyright [], the Promoter’s failure to challenge or otherwise disclaim such knowledge, and the Promoters’ activities as sworn to in the Lawi affidavit, sufficient to establish the requisite showing of intent under [the relevant caselaw]. The court also finds that the focal point of the alleged tort, and the locus of its injury, was South Carolina.The Court addresses WWE's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the "traditional" test," as opposed to the "effects" test, and finds that Dash has adequately established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over the WWE. Specifically, the Court holds:
Here, WWE’s DVDs of WrestleMania 24 did not randomly and fortuitously find their way on to the shelves of South Carolina retail establishments. []. WWE is 'an integrated media company,' registered to do business in South Carolina, and caused its DVDs to be sold through many of the largest retailers in the country, each with many locations in South Carolina. On these facts, WWE cannot deny that it 'delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in [South Carolina].' []. Accordingly, as the injury to the intellectual property occurred when the infringing content was sold in South Carolina, [], the requirement that the action arise out of the WWE’s activity in the forum is satisfied.The Court also found that "WWE purposefully availed itself of the privileges and protections of South Carolina through introducing items in to the stream of commerce with the expectation of sales in South Carolina."
The court turns to "constitutional reasonableness," i.e even where there are sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state (here, South Carolina), "jurisdiction must also comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice." The Court notes that the factor it considers include the "burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum, the forum’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief and the judicial system's interest in resolving the dispute."
In finding that it is reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants the Court holds:
First, the alleged financial resources of the Promoters do not appear to present any great burden to litigating in the South Carolina, and the Promoters have made no showing as to how litigating in this forum would be 'gravely difficulty' such that it would be placed at a 'severe disadvantage in comparison to [their] opponent.' []. The court notes that the Promoters were able to secure counsel from a large national law firm to represent its interests. []. Furthermore, the court notes that the 'inequity of being haled into a foreign forum is mitigated if it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant could be subject to suit there,' as is the case when a defendant enters the state to infringe another’s intellectual property. As to prong two, South Carolina has an interest in protecting its citizen’s rights, especially from intentional torts committed by out-of-state actors. Third, Dash has a keen interest in obtaining relief in his home state, as opposed to Florida or Nevada. He also has a valid and substantial interest in protecting what property he has from being infringed and is entitled to use the judicial system in South Carolina to protect the same.Having concluded that Dash had made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction is proper, the Court turned to defendants' request to transfer the case to Nevada which they claim is a more convenient forum. Note that this alternative argument assumes jurisdiction but nonetheless submits that South Carolina is not the most convenient forum and so the case should be transferred.
The Court addresses both sides' arguments and agrees with Dash, holding that Dash's "choice of forum is entitled to 'significant weight,' South Carolina has a substantial interest in vindicating its citizens’ rights as against foreign tortfeasors, and the ease of access to sources of proof does not favor either side.
So while it appears that Pacquiao and Margarito will do battle in Texas come November, Mayweather, for now, will only be fighting in the courts.
Fight Lawyer
