Nicolson v. Shafe 2d District Court case

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISION JEANNETTE C. NICHOLSON, Ph.D.,an individual, and CAREERASSESSMENT ATLANTA, INC., aGeorgia Corporation,Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION FILEv. NO. 1:07-CV-2724-BBM JAMES C. SHAFE, an individual,CAREER TRAINING CONCEPTS,INC., a Georgia Corporation, andSALES AND MANAGEMENTTRAINING INSTITUTE OFATLANTA, a previous GeorgiaCorporation,Defendants.

O R D E R

This declaratory judgment action is before the court on the Motion to Dismissfor Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted (the “Motion toDismiss”) [Doc. No. 6], and the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (the “Rule 11 Motion”)[Doc. No. 11], both filed by Defendants.

I.Factual and Procedural Background

On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all factual allegations set outin the plaintiff’s complaint. See Lotierzo v. Woman’s World Med. Ctr., Inc.

, 278 F.3d1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are taken

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the EleventhCircuit adopted all decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981 asbinding precedent.

-2-

from Plaintiffs’ November 1, 2007 Complaint. For this reason, the following accountdoes not constitute findings of fact by the court.

Pursuant to Federal Rule ofEvidence 201, the court takes judicial notice of the content of official court recordsin Nicholson v. Shafe

, 1:03-CV-3573-BBM (the “First Federal Court Action”), andNicholson v. Shafe, Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia, No.05A10673-1 (the “State Court Action”). SeeFed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); United States v.Capua

, 656 F.2d 1033, 1038 n.3 (5th Cir. 1981);

1

Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc.

, 187F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999).Plaintiff Jeannette C. Nicholson, Ph.D. (“Dr. Nicholson”) works in the fieldof career assessment and counseling. On or about September 1987, Dr. Nicholsonat Defendants’ request created a career assessment test and set of predictive data tointerpret the test responses for Defendants’ “Career Directions” program. Theassessment included five columns of information entitled “What Your ScoresMean.” (Order, May 18, 2005, First Federal Court Action (“May 18, 2005 Order”),at 3 (granting summary judgment).) On October 12, 1987, Dr. Nicholson andDefendants executed a work-for-hire agreement in connection with the workDr. Nicholson performed for “Career Directions.” On or about December 1993,

-3-Dr. Nicholson at Defendants’ request created a new interest inventory test and setof predictive data, a computer scan sheet, a careers guide, and related materials(collectively, the “Subject Work”) for Defendants’ “Future Focus” program. Theinterest inventory included eleven columns of information entitled “What YourScores Mean.” (Id. at 3-4.) No work-for-hire agreement was executed in connectionwith the Subject Work. On March 28, 2001, Dr. Nicholson filed a copyrightregistration for Columns 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11 of the “What Your Scores Mean”portion of the interest inventory created for Future Focus. (Id. at 4.)On November 21, 2003, Plaintiffs filed the First Federal Court Action againstDefendants. Plaintiffs asserted a claim that Defendants had infringed Plaintiffs’registered copyright in the Subject Work, as well as several state law claims. In theMay 18, 2005 Order, this court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.In considering Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, this court was requiredto, and did, construe all evidence in favor of the Plaintiffs. Applying that approach,(May 18, 2005 Order 2 & n.1), the court found that the relevant parts of the SubjectWork constituted a joint work for which Defendants were co-authors, rather thanindividual contributors to a collective work, as Dr. Nicholson had claimed in hercertificate of copyright registration. It stated:In sum, the court finds that FutureFocus is comprised of inseparableand interdependent works, and that Nicholson intended for the new