United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Joseph Stiglitz' motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff International Institute of
Management (“IIM”) filed a response (ECF No. 33),
to which Stiglitz replied (ECF No. 35).
before the court is defendant Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's (“OECD”) motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 21). IIM filed a response (ECF No. 34),
to which OECD replied (ECF No. 37). IIM also filed a surreply
(ECF No. 44), to which OECD responded (ECF No. 47).
a copyright infringement action in which IIM alleges that the
OECD, a Paris-based intergovernmental organization for
economic research and policy, and Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate
and professor of economics at Columbia University, allegedly
stole credit for IIM's work on using non-GDP factors to
measure the well-being of countries. (ECF No. 1).
a small, Nevada think tank that publishes economics papers on
the internet. Id. In 2005, IIM published a two-page
paper titled “Gross National Well-being (GNW)
Index” (“2005 paper”). Id. The
2005 paper generally discusses the idea of using non-GDP
factors to measure the well-being of countries and provides
seven factors that such an index might use. (ECF No. 23-2).
The 2005 paper does not show how to use these factors to
measure a country's well-being. Id.
2006, IIM published a second paper titled “The American
Pursuit of Unhappiness” (“2006 paper”).
(ECF No. 1). The 2006 paper is six pages long and generally
discusses why a nation's happiness should be measured
with non-GDP factors. (ECF No. 23-3). The paper also
elaborates on non-GDP factors that various measurement
approaches might use. Id. Like the 2005 paper, the
2006 paper does not provide any solution on how to measure
the well-being of countries with non-GDP factors.
OECD's Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress (the
“commission”) conducts research on measuring the
well-being of countries. (ECF No. 1). Stiglitz, who is a
resident of New York, is the chairman of the commission and
substantially contributed to various reports and articles
that the commission published. Id.
2009, the commission published a 291-page report titled
“Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress” (“2009
report”). (ECF Nos. 1, 23-4). Twenty-two commissioners,
five of whom are Nobel laureates, wrote the 2009 report,
which discusses the limits of GDP as an indicator of economic
performance. (ECF No. 23-4). The report also extensively
addresses problems with various measurement techniques and
how to improve upon existing methods to determine the
well-being of countries. Id.
2011, the OECD created the Better Life Index, which uses
non-GDP factors to measure the well-being of countries. (ECF
No. 23-5). The OECD published the index on the internet on an
interactive website that millions of people have used to
compare the well-being of countries. Id. According
to the complaint, Stiglitz is also selling a book on
Amazon.com which contains material from IIM's copyright
protected works. (ECF No. 1). IIM alleges that the 2009
report, the Better Life Index, and Stiglitz' book
infringe on its copyrights in the 2005 and 2006 papers.
September 10, 2018, IIM initiated this action, asserting four
causes of action: (1) copyright infringement; (2) vicarious
and/or contributory copyright infringement; (3) unfair
competition; and (4) false advertising in violation of the
Lanham Act. Id. Now, OECD and Stiglitz move to
dismiss the complaint. (ECF Nos. 19, 21).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to move
to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). To avoid dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden of
demonstrating that its allegations establish a prima
facie case for personal jurisdiction. See Boschetto
v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008).
Allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and
factual disputes should be construed in the plaintiff's
favor. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,
284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002).
no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the
district court applies the law of the forum state.”
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015; see also Panavision
Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir.
1998). Where a state has a “long-arm” statute
providing its courts jurisdiction to the fullest extent
permitted by the due process clause, as Nevada does, a court
need only address federal due process standards. See
Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
134 P.3d 710, 712 (Nev. 2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. §
14.065); see also Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015.
assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with due
process. See Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods
Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2012). Two categories
of personal jurisdiction exist: (1) general jurisdiction; and
(2) specific jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413-15 (1984);
see also LSI Indus., Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.,
232 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
jurisdiction arises where a defendant has continuous and
systematic ties with the forum, even if those ties are
unrelated to the litigation. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A., 466 U.S.
at 414-16). “[T]he plaintiff must demonstrate the
defendant has sufficient contacts to constitute the kind of
continuous and systematic general business contacts that
approximate physical presence.” In re W. States
Wholesale Nat. Gas Litig., 605 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1131 (D.
Nev. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In other words, defendant's affiliations with ...