Rosenblatt v. Estate of Morris Levy
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
1994-F092-03220001
Richard Rosenblatt
v.
Estate of Morris Levy et al.
Date:
Dated 1994-03-22
Docket No.:
93–3005
Citation:
Copyright L. Rep. (CCH) ¶27,243
Before:
J.S. Martin, Jr. (District Judge)
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Carl E. Person, New York City, Leon Baer Borstein of Borstein, Sheinbaum & Lurie, New York City.
For defendant: Alan L. Shulman of Silverman & Shulman, New York City.
Martin, District Judge:

1Defendant moves to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff rests his jurisdictional hopes on Count 5 of his complaint, which alleges that, in 1965, plaintiff wrote the song “It’s Only Love,” which was recorded by the Shondells and released by Roulette Records that same year. Levy, the principal shareholder and controller of Roulette, allegedly placed his own name on the copyright and assigned it to defendant Windswept Pacific Entertainment Co. Out of fear for his safety, plaintiff did not ask Levy to remove his name from the copyright or pay him for the song. Plaintiff now demands some $200,000 in compensatory and $10,000,000 in punitive damages for these acts.1

2In the controlling case in the area of Copyright Act jurisdiction, Judge Friendly wrote that

A layman would doubtless be surprised to learn that an action wherein the purported sole owner of a copyright alleged that persons claiming partial ownership had recorded their claim in the Copyright Office and had warned his licensees against disregarding their interests was not one arising under any Act of Congress relating to … copyrights over which 28 U.S.C. 1338 gives the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. Yet precedents going back for more than a century teach that lesson …. Harms v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 824 (2d Cir. 1964), cert denied, 381 U.S. 915 (1995).

3The precise issue in this case was addresed by Judge Goettel in Keith v. Scruggs, 508 F.Supp. 968 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). There, as here, the sole purpose of plaintiff’s case was to establish ownership of the copyright plaintiff claimed defendant had wrongfully obtained. There, as here, the court concluded the case belonged in state court.

4Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby granted.

5SO ORDERED.

1

In the other counts of his complaint, plaintiff seeks damages for numerous instances in which Levy and/or the companies he controlled stole songs from plaintiff and refused to make royalty and other payments to him. Plaintiff urges the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Even if this Court were to conclude that Count 5 alleges a claim within its jurisdiction, it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these substantially unrelated claims.