Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02790/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02790-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 6, 2015*

Decided January 8, 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 14-2790

HAASAN H. HIJRAHANNAH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 0872

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge.

O R D E R

Haasan Hijrahannah sued UMG Recordings, alleging that he created sheet music

and provided it to the company, which used it for financial gain in violation of 

numerous federal statutes, including the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1332,

and its amendment, the Visual Artists Rights Act, id. § 106A. He also invokes the 

 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-2790 Document: 12 Filed: 01/08/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14-2790 Page 2

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several state laws. The district court

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because Hijrahannah did not allege 

that he owned a valid copyright or protectable work of visual art, and the Declaration 

provides no private right of action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The court declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hijrahannah’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3).

Hijrahannah generally contests the district court’s order, urging that his claims 

should move forward. But Hijrahannah has failed to develop any argument that would 

provide a basis to disturb the district court’s judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). For

substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.

Case: 14-2790 Document: 12 Filed: 01/08/2015 Pages: 2