Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Buttner v. Rd Palmer Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court, Second Circuit

November 27, 2013



LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.


This action for copyright infringement and related claims comes before the Court on a Motion by Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company ("Rich & Gardner") for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Dkt. No. 44 ("Motion"); see Dkt. No. 52 ("Reply"). Defendants RD Palmer Enterprises and Richard Palmer (collectively, "Palmer") and Dunn & Sgromo Engineers ("Dunn & Sgromo") join in the Motion, see Dkt. Nos. 46-47; 51; 53, while Plaintiff Brian R. Buttner ("Plaintiff") opposes it.[1] Dkt. Nos. 48; 49 ("Response"). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in full.


Plaintiff is an architect who resides in New York. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint") ¶ 4. All Defendants are also New York residents. Id . ¶¶ 5-9. On March 14, 2006, Palmer hired Plaintiff to provide various services relating to the renovation of a gas station in Cortland, New York, owned and operated by Palmer. Id . ¶¶ 15, 28. Among the services Plaintiff rendered was the creation of architectural drawings ("Plans"). Id . ¶¶ 18-19, 21. Under Plaintiff's agreement with Palmer, Plaintiff retained copyright ownership in the Plans. Id . ¶ 16. Plaintiff registered his copyrights in the Plans on July 27, 2011. Id . ¶ 22.

Plaintiff gave Palmer a copy of the Plans in March or April 2006. Id . ¶ 20. Plaintiff revised the Plans thereafter through January 2008 according to Palmer's instructions and provided Palmer with copies of the revised Plans. Id . The gas station renovations began in 2010, with the participation of all Defendants, and were completed sometime before Autumn 2011. Id . ¶¶ 25-29. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 26, 2013, claiming that Defendants infringed his copyrights and Palmer breached a contract by completing the gas station renovations. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 24-27, 30-31, 40-42. Plaintiff also brought claims under New York law for unjust enrichment and unfair competition arising out of the same events. Id . ¶¶ 44-53. The Motion seeks judgment that these noncontractual state-law claims are preempted by the Copyright Act of 1976 ("Copyright Act"), 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and that Plaintiff cannot obtain attorney's fees, statutory damages, or punitive damages in this action. See generally Mot.


Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings are decided under the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hayden v. Paterson , 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, "[t]o survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, '" Graziano v. Pataki , 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), when the complaint's factual allegations are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in a plaintiff's favor. Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc. , 707 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2013). The movant bears the burden of showing "that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Juster Assocs. v. City of Rutland , 901 F.2d 266, 269 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1368 (1969)); accord 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1368 (3d ed. 2012).


A. Preemption Under the Copyright Act

As of January 1, 1978, the Copyright Act expressly preempts any right under state statute or common law that is equivalent to any of the exclusive rights protected by the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Thus, state-law claims regarding "works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression, " id.; see id. § 301(b)(1) (exempting "works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (emphasis added)), are preempted where the work in question is of a type protected under §§ 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act and the claimed state-law right is equivalent to a right enumerated in § 106 of the Copyright Act. See Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc. , 373 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2004). The subject of Plaintiff's claims is his architectural works, which are protected under § 102(a)(8) of the Copyright Act. The question therefore is solely whether Plaintiff's state-law claims "involve acts of reproduction, adaptation, performance, distribution or display" and do not require any "extra elements" rendering them "qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim." Briarpatch , 373 F.3d at 305.

1. Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiff argues that his unjust enrichment claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act because it includes an allegation of conversion.[3] See Resp. at 4-6; see also Briarpatch , 373 F.3d at 306 (holding that unjust enrichment claims under New York law are generally preempted by the Copyright Act). This argument fails for several reasons. First, unjust enrichment and conversion are separate legal theories. The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are: (1) enrichment of a defendant; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) equity and good conscience militate against permitting the defendant to retain what the plaintiff is seeking to recover. Levine v. Landy , 832 F.Supp.2d 176, 188 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Briarpatch , 373 F.3d at 306). The tort of conversion, on the other hand, requires: (1) legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing; (2) over which a defendant has exercised an unauthorized dominion; (3) to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights. Berman v. Sugo LLC , 580 F.Supp.2d 191, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Fiorenti v. Cent. Emergency Physicians, PLLC , 762 N.Y.S.2d 402, 403 (App. Div. 2003)).

Second, Plaintiff has not alleged facts proving conversion. He relies solely on his conclusory allegation that "Defendants were unjustly enriched by the theft, misappropriation, and conversion of Plaintiff's ideas, designs, and concepts." Compl. ¶ 47; see Resp. at 4. However, "[t]he conversion of intangible property, " such as ideas, designs, and concepts, "is not actionable." Sun Gold Corp. v. Stillman , 946 N.Y.S.2d 24, 25 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Sporn v. MCA Records , 448 N.E.2d 1324, 1327 (N.Y. 1983)); see also Berman , 580 F.Supp.2d at 206. Nor has Plaintiff pleaded a proper conversion claim; i.e., that Defendants have wrongly exercised an exclusive domain over a tangible object belonging to Plaintiff regardless of any expressive content associated with that object. Such a claim "survives" copyright preemption because it concerns only possession of a specific item and has nothing to do with, e.g., copying, displaying, or distributing the item, or creating derivative works based on it. Thus, the defendants in Levine properly conceded that the plaintiff's claim for the wrongful retention of a specific set of photographic slides was not preempted by the Copyright Act. 832 F.Supp. at 188; see also Oddo v. Ries , 743 F.2d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 1984) ("Conversion of tangible property involves actions different from those proscribed by the copyright laws, and thus is not preempted."); cf. Sporn , 448 N.E.2d at 1327 (holding that a conversion claim was actionable for possession of a master recording). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.