Lexplug logoLexplug

Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
2000 WL 223799, 204 F.3d 343 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal jurisdiction over copyright claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 exists if the complaint asserts a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act, regardless of whether the claim arises in the context of a contract dispute; however, Indian tribes retain sovereign immunity from such suits unless Congress has unequivocally abrogated it.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Bassett, a film producer, met with representatives of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe to discuss producing a film about the Pequot War for the Tribe's museum.
  • Bassett and the Tribe entered into a 'Letter Agreement' stipulating that Bassett would develop a screenplay and, upon approval, receive exclusive rights to produce the film.
  • Bassett wrote a script based on a scenario she developed and registered it with the Copyright Office.
  • The Tribe sent Bassett a notice terminating the Letter Agreement, citing unsatisfactory performance.
  • Following the termination, the Tribe produced a motion picture entitled 'The Witness' using Bassett's script without her consent or license.
  • The Tribe intended to screen the film at the Museum as part of a tourist attraction.

Procedural Posture:

  • Bassett filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract, and torts.
  • The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to exhaust tribal remedies.
  • The District Court dismissed the copyright claims against the Tribe and Museum for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning the claims were 'merely incidental' to the contract dispute.
  • The District Court dismissed state-law claims against the Tribe based on tribal sovereign immunity.
  • The District Court dismissed all claims against the non-tribal defendants (Museum, Bell, Campisi) under Rule 19(b), finding the Tribe was an indispensable party.
  • Bassett appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright infringement claim that stems from a breach of contract, and does tribal sovereign immunity bar such a claim against an Indian Tribe?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Leval

Yes regarding jurisdiction, but No regarding the ability to sue the Tribe directly. The Court reaffirmed the 'face of the complaint' test established in T.B. Harms, holding that federal jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff seeks a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act, such as an injunction or statutory damages. The Court expressly overruled the complex Schoenberg test, which had required courts to determine if the copyright claim was merely 'incidental' to a contract dispute. Under the revived T.B. Harms standard, Bassett's request for a copyright injunction established federal jurisdiction. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Tribe itself, ruling that Indian tribes possess common-law sovereign immunity which can only be abrogated by clear congressional expression. The Court found that the Copyright Act does not contain an unequivocal waiver of tribal immunity. Finally, the Court vacated the dismissal of claims against the non-tribal defendants (the Museum and individuals), ruling that the Tribe was not an 'indispensable party' because copyright infringers are jointly and severally liable, allowing a plaintiff to sue some infringers without joining all of them.



Analysis:

This decision is legally significant because it simplified the standard for federal subject matter jurisdiction in 'hybrid' cases involving both copyright and contract issues within the Second Circuit. By rejecting the 'essence of the dispute' or 'incidental' test from Schoenberg, the court removed the burden on district courts to make complex factual determinations about the 'real' motivation of a lawsuit at the pleading stage. It ensures that plaintiffs seeking federal copyright remedies are not denied a federal forum simply because a contract is involved. However, the case also reinforces the strength of tribal sovereign immunity, clarifying that even off-reservation commercial conduct (producing a film) is protected unless Congress explicitly says otherwise.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"