UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SOPHIA EGGLESTON 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 15-11893 

 HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

LEE DANIELS, et al. HON. ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DKT. 46) 

AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANTS DANIELS, SPELLMAN, AND STRONG’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DKT. 48) 

 In this copyright infringement case, Plaintiff Sophia Eggleston (“Plaintiff” or 

“Eggleston”) alleges that her self-characterization in her 2009 memoir The Hidden 

Hand was the uncredited inspiration for the character Loretha “Cookie” Lyon on the 

FOX television series Empire. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 73-80.) Two motions are before the Court. 

First, all Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. (Dkt. 46.) Second, Defendants Lee Daniels, Malcolm 

Spellman, and Daniel Strong (the “Individual Defendants”) assert, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction 

over them. (Dkt. 48.) The motions are fully briefed, but Defendants have filed 

objections to several declarations Plaintiff submitted as exhibits to her response 

briefs. (Dkt. 56.) Plaintiff has responded to Defendants’ objections. (Dkt. 57.) 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 1561
2 

 On May 18, 2016, a hearing was held on these motions in Detroit, Michigan. 

(See Dkt. 58.) For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be 

GRANTED IN PART as to Count II only and DENIED as to the remaining 

Counts. The Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction (Dkt. 48) will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will 

order the parties to conduct THIRTY DAYS of jurisdictional discovery. The 

Individual Defendants may re-file their motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction once this jurisdictional discovery is complete. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging that the 

television series Empire, and in particular the character Loretha “Cookie” Lyon 

(“Cookie Lyon”), was inspired by Plaintiff’s 2009 memoir The Hidden Hand. (See 

Dkt. 1.) A copy of the memoir was attached to the complaint. (Id.) After Plaintiff 

retained an attorney, she filed her First Amended Complaint on November 20, 

2015, and again attached a copy of The Hidden Hand. (Dkt. 43.) The First Amended 

Complaint contains two counts: copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 

101 et seq. (Count I), and the unlawful appropriation of Plaintiff’s right to publicity 

in violation of Michigan common law (Count II). (Id. at ¶¶ 75-96.) 

A. Plaintiff’s Memoir The Hidden Hand

 In 2009, Plaintiff self-published her memoir entitled The Hidden Hand. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 31-32.) Composed between 2005 and 2007, with additional material added in 

2009, The Hidden Hand details Plaintiff’s “life of crime, her time in prison, and her 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 1562
3 

subsequent redemption.” (Id. at ¶ 35.) The title is a reference to the hidden hand of 

God that Plaintiff believes has been guiding and protecting her throughout her 

tumultuous life. (Dkt. 43-1, p. 5-7.) Plaintiff registered her memoir with the 

copyright office on or about November 16, 2009, and received copyright registration 

number TXu001656874. (Dkt. 43, ¶¶ 33-34.) 

The Hidden Hand, set primarily in Detroit, is a thorough retelling of 

Plaintiff’s life beginning with her birth in 1966 and her earliest memories. (Dkt. 43-

1, p. 20.) Plaintiff describes herself as a person who was born “ready to fight” and 

who suffered an abusive father throughout her childhood. (Id. at 20-23.) By the age 

of eight, Plaintiff asserts that she was leading her first gang and had developed an 

uncontrollable temper. (Id. at 27-28.) At fifteen, Plaintiff started selling drugs and 

moved into the home of Robert Lucas, with whom she began a romantic 

relationship. (Dkt. 43-2, pp. 3-11.) Plaintiff became addicted to drugs, and struggled 

with that addiction throughout her adult life. (See, e.g, dkt. 43-9, pp. 25-30.) She 

recounts how she committed crimes, was convicted of several offenses, and went to 

jail, but was eventually able to maintain her sobriety after serving her second 

prison term. (Dkt. 43-2, pp. 10, 32-45; Dkt. 43-3, pp. 9-10.) 

 Many significant events in Plaintiff’s life are detailed in The Hidden Hand. 

Plaintiff recounts the attempted kidnapping of her youngest daughter (Dkt 43-10, 

pp. 44-46), and coming to terms with her brother’s homosexuality, which he 

revealed to her while she was in prison (Dkt. 43-9, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff survived 

numerous incidents where she was threatened with guns. (Dkt. 43-8, p. 2; Dkt. 43-

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 1563
4 

11, pp. 12-13; Dkt. 43-12, pp. 4-6, 21.) The memoir also includes stories about 

Plaintiff’s two sisters, both of whom were murdered. (Dkt. 43-4, pp. 19-31; Dkt. 43-

5, pp. 26-43.) 

 After her first sister’s passing, Plaintiff met Eddie Hodge at a Johnnie Taylor 

show. (Dkt. 43-4, p. 37.) Eddie and Plaintiff became romantically involved, and it is 

through Eddie’s contacts in the music business that Plaintiff met many famous 

musicians, including Taylor, B.B. King, and George Clinton. (Dkt. 43-4, pp. 37-50; 

Dkt. 43-5, pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff and Eddie eventually had a daughter. (Dkt. 43-5, p. 3.) 

The couple would separate and reconcile several times throughout Plaintiff’s life 

until Eddie’s death from cancer. (Dkt. 43-11, pp. 38-46.) 

 Prior to Eddie’s death, Plaintiff had a romantic relationship with Rodney 

Meeks that was marred by drugs and violence. (Dkt. 43-5, pp. 37-50.) In 1992, after 

a particularly violent argument, Plaintiff shot and killed Rodney. (Dkt. 43-8, pp. 5-

27; Dkt. 43-9, p. 2.) Plaintiff refused a plea deal and was tried for second-degree 

murder, but found guilty by jury of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to one to 

fifteen years’ imprisonment. (Dkt. 43-8, pp. 5-27.) Plaintiff claims that she was not 

initially able to remember the incident, but suffered a mental breakdown in prison 

when her memories finally returned, resulting in her temporary placement in the 

prison psychiatric unit. (Dkt. 43-9, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff was released in 1995, but she 

failed several drug tests and had to complete a thirty-day drug rehabilitation 

program to avoid returning to prison. (Id. at 14-15, 23-27.) After completing the 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 1564
5 

program, Plaintiff founded a Christian ministry called Jesus Freedom that includes 

a radio and television program. (Dkt. 43-9, pp. 29-33; Dkt. 43-10, p. 28.) 

 In 1996, Plaintiff learned about prisoner Felix Walls from Eddie’s oldest son, 

who believed that Plaintiff’s ministry could help Walls. (Dkt. 43-10, p. 27.) Plaintiff 

visited Walls at the Wayne County jail and soon fell in love with him. (Id. at 28.) 

Plaintiff believes that Walls’ conviction is the result of a conspiracy against him and 

supported him throughout his retrial, even petitioning a federal judge and then 

United States Attorney General Janet Reno for assistance. (Id. at 29-44.) Walls was 

convicted a second time, however, which led Plaintiff to believe that God introduced 

her to Walls to inspire her to expose police corruption rather than to fulfill her own 

personal desires. (Id.) As a result of this revelation, Plaintiff had a series of 

altercations with the police. (Dkt. 43-11, pp. 6-8, 12-15, 46-47.) 

 In 2005, Plaintiff returned to prison for violating probation and marijuana 

possession when the police found a large quantity of the drug in her home. (Dkt. 43-

12, pp. 39-46.) While serving this second prison sentence, Plaintiff began writing 

The Hidden Hand. (Id. at 44-45.) Plaintiff was released in 2007 (Id. at 47), but she 

had a health scare in 2009 that prompted her to write the final chapter. (Dkt. 43-13, 

pp. 1-4.) The final chapter details how Plaintiff began working as a community 

liaison for a home health care provider after serving her prison time. (Id. at 17-18.) 

She then founded her own home health care company that brings doctors to the 

residences of homebound individuals. (Id. at 18.) Plaintiff writes that she found 

redemption in ensuring that seniors and the disabled receive quality health care 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 1565
6 

and are treated with dignity. (Id. at 18-20.) The memoir ends after Plaintiff 

succeeds in restoring the utilities of one of her elderly clients who could not afford to 

pay those bills. (Id. at 31.) Plaintiff concludes by imploring her readers to trust in 

the power and presence of God’s hidden hand in their own lives. (Id. at 32.) 

B. Plaintiff’s Meeting with Rita Grant Miller 

 According to the First Amended Complaint, in 2011, approximately two years 

after completing The Hidden Hand, Plaintiff was introduced to Rita Grant Miller 

through a mutual acquaintance, producer Richard “Rick” Appling.1 (Dkt. 43, ¶¶ 36-

40.) Miller has worked as a screenwriter and has been involved in the production of 

several films. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Appling arranged for Plaintiff to visit Miller’s residence 

in California for a meeting where Plaintiff and Miller discussed adapting The 

Hidden Hand into a screenplay.2 (Id. at ¶ 40.) At the meeting, Plaintiff gave Miller 

a copy of The Hidden Hand and was interviewed at length by Miller, who took 

notes. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-43.) Miller told Plaintiff and Appling that Miller would adapt 

The Hidden Hand into a screenplay and pitch the idea to Defendant Lee Daniels. 

(Id. at ¶¶ 44-45.) Miller showed Plaintiff the 2013 movie The Butler, directed by 

Defendant Daniels and written and produced by Defendant Daniel Strong, to 

familiarize Plaintiff with Defendant Daniels’ work. (Id. at ¶ 46.) 

                                                            

1 No party has filed a deposition, declaration, or affidavit from Rita Grant Miller and, as they 

clarified at the motion hearing, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s version of her interactions 

with Miller or of Miller’s interactions with them. At this stage, the Court will therefore accept 

Plaintiff’s well-plead allegations with respect to Miller and the Individual Defendants as true. 

2 Plaintiff references her desire to make a movie about her life several times in The Hidden Hand. 

(See, e.g., dkt. 43-1, pp. 12-13; dkt. 43-10, p. 8.) 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 1566
7 

 Plaintiff alleges that, on information and belief, Miller wrote a script or a 

treatment of The Hidden Hand. (Id. at ¶ 47.) After Plaintiff returned to Michigan, 

Miller called Plaintiff from New Jersey and told Plaintiff that Miller was meeting 

with Defendant Daniels and would pitch the adaptation of The Hidden Hand to 

him. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-52.) Plaintiff asserts that, as part of this pitch meeting, Miller 

gave Defendant Daniels a copy of The Hidden Hand, Miller’s adaptation or 

treatment of The Hidden Hand, and Miller’s interview notes. (Id. at ¶¶ 53-55.) 

Defendant Daniels, according to Plaintiff, then shared these materials with 

Defendants Malcolm Spellman and Strong, among others. (Id. at ¶ 56.) After 

meeting with Defendant Daniels, Miller avoided all further contact with Plaintiff. 

(Id. at ¶ 57.) 

C. The FOX Television Series Empire

 Defendants include the creators, writers, producers, directors, broadcasters, 

and distributors of the FOX network television series Empire, which debuted on 

January 7, 2015 and has been renewed for a third season. The series is set in 

present-day New York City and chronicles the saga of the Lyon family’s struggle for 

control of their music and entertainment company, Empire Entertainment.3 The 

family patriarch is rapper and music mogul Lucious Lyon, a former drug dealer who 

learns he has been diagnosed with a fatal disease. With only three years to live, 

                                                            

3 The following two-paragraph summary of Empire is taken from DVD recordings of the first season 

submitted by Defendants as an exhibit to their Rule 12(b)(6) motion. (Dkt. 43, Ex. A.) Because 

Plaintiff repeatedly references the television series in her First Amended Complaint, the Court will 

consider those recordings as if they are incorporated by reference. See Weiner v. Klais and Co., 108 

F.3d 86, 89 (6th Cir. 1997). Whenever possible, the Court will try to avoid spoiling significant plot 

developments. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 1567
8 

Lucious contemplates the fate of his empire, and begins to consider which of his 

family members is most qualified to succeed him. 

 When the series opens, Lucious is in full control of Empire Entertainment, a 

privately-held music and entertainment company that was founded by Lucious and 

his ex-wife, Cookie Lyon, with the help of money Cookie earned from her drug 

dealing operations. In the first episode, Cookie is about halfway through serving a 

thirty-year prison sentence, which she received after taking the fall for a drug deal 

gone wrong. Unexpectedly, Cookie gains release after seventeen years and confronts 

Lucious, demanding her share of the company. Thus begins the struggle for control 

of Empire Entertainment between Lucious, Cookie, and their three sons: Andre, a 

married businessman with bipolar disorder, Jamal, a gay singer rejected by his 

homophobic father, and Hakeem, a talented but unfocused rapper. Defendants 

compare the shifting alliances within and without the Lyon family to those in 

William Shakespeare’s play King Lear or to those typically depicted in prime-time 

television soap operas about the rich and famous, such as Dallas and Dynasty. (Dkt. 

46, pp. 16-17.) 

D. Substantial Similarities 

 Plaintiff alleges that that are many “striking and shocking similarities” 

between the way she depicted herself in The Hidden Hand and the character of 

Cookie Lyon. (Dkt. 43, ¶ 67.) In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff gives a list 

of twenty-three such similarities. These include the fact that Plaintiff and Cookie 

Lyon are both light-skinned African-American women who wear expensive clothing, 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 1568
9 

lead gangs, have placed hits on men and sold drugs, have gay family members, have 

two family members who were murdered, have served prison sentences, and are 

known for their “vicious insults” and propensity to slap people. (Id.) Moreover, both 

Plaintiff and Cookie Lyon have shielded others by stepping in front of a loaded gun, 

have endured the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of one of their children, lost 

their lovers while in prison, and attacked their former lovers’ new lovers upon 

release from prison. (Id.) The complaint further notes that they both have a 

tendency to use the words “hoe” and “bitch”. (Id.) 

 Defendants argue that these similarities are coincidental rather than 

substantial, and represent “unprotectable biographical facts, ideas, stock themes, 

and elements commonplace in drug and violence stories.” (Dkt. 46, p. 11.) Plaintiff 

maintains that these similarities speak to the “expression and portrayal of a 

character” and are not mere biographical facts. (Dkt. 52, pp. 14-15.) 

 

II. ANALYSIS 

The motions before the Court raise three matters to resolve. First are 

Defendants’ evidentiary objections to the declarations that Plaintiff has attached to 

her two response briefs. (Dkt. 56.) Second, there is Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 46.) And third, 

the Individual Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). (Dkt. 48.) The Court will now address each 

issue in turn. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 1569
10 

A. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections 

 As a threshold matter, Defendants have filed evidentiary objections to the 

declarations that Plaintiff submitted in support of her response briefs as containing 

hearsay or improper expert testimony. (Dkt. 56.) In particular, Defendants object to 

the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas Heed, filed in support of Plaintiff’s 

response to the Individual Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion. (Id. at 1.) Defendants 

argue that Heed’s declaration “improperly relies on hearsay references” to the 

contents of a contract between Defendant Daniels and FOX. (Id. at 8.) The Court 

finds that the record is insufficient to permit a determination on the question of 

personal jurisdiction. Consequently, the parties will be allowed to conduct thirty 

days of jurisdictional discovery, and the motion to dismiss will be denied without 

prejudice at this time. It is therefore premature to rule on the objection to Heed’s 

declaration, which will also be overruled without prejudice. 

 The Court will also deny without prejudice Defendants’ objections to the 

declarations of Plaintiff, Appling, and Paula Taylor that Plaintiff attached as 

exhibits in support of her response to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Defendants 

argue that Plaintiff’s declaration relies on inadmissible hearsay by referencing, and 

mischaracterizing, statements made by a judge during a television news program 

that Plaintiff appeared on after she filed this case. (Id. at 9.) As for the declarations 

of Appling and Taylor, Defendants argue that they contain inadmissible expert 

testimony because the declarants “opine on the ultimate legal issue” of this case 

without having been qualified as experts. (Id. at 10-14.) 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 1570
11 

 As noted below, when deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court’s inquiry is 

limited to an examination of the complaint. Weiner v. Klais and Co., 108 F.3d 86, 88 

(6th Cir. 1997). The Court is not to consider matters outside the pleadings, and may 

only consider those documents attached to a motion to dismiss, such as a video 

recording of the Empire television show, that are referred to in the complaint and 

are central to Plaintiff’s claims. 4 Id. at 89. To do otherwise would be to risk 

converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment prior to any 

discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), 

matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the 

motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”) 

 With the narrow scope of its inquiry in mind, the Court will not rely on the 

declarations attached to Plaintiff’s response briefs. Accordingly, any objections 

thereto will be denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff attempts to rely on these 

declarations at the summary judgment phase, then Defendants may renew their 

objections at that time. 

                                                            

4 In her response brief filed in opposition to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff requests that 

the Court exclude Defendants’ exhibit video recording of the first season of Empire attached to its 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion. (Dkt. 52, p. 16.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the declarations she 

has filed be considered and Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion converted to a motion for summary 

judgment. (Id.) The Court has broad discretion to decide whether to consider matters outside the 

pleadings and convert the motion. See Wysocki v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 607 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th 

Cir. 2010) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to district court’s decision to convert a 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment). The Court will decline to exercise its 

discretion here because no discovery has been conducted in this case and questions remain with 

respect to its jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants, but the Court will consider the video 

recording of Empire because it is clearly central to Plaintiff’s claims and referenced throughout her 

First Amended Complaint. Indeed, determining whether Plaintiff’s claims are plausible requires 

comparing the two works. The declarations in question, by contrast, are not necessary to decide 

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 1571
12 

B. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion 

 Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as insufficient to 

state a claim and argue that it must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 

46.) Both in their motion and at the hearing, Defendants did not contest Plaintiff’s 

allegations that the Defendants had access to The Hidden Hand. Instead,

Defendants focus exclusively on Plaintiff’s allegations of substantial similarity. (Id. 

at 19-32.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s state law claim must be dismissed 

because Plaintiff has not plead any facts alleging that she has a pecuniary interest 

or commercial value in her identity. (Id. at 32-34.) Plaintiff disputes these 

arguments. (Dkt. 52.) 

1. Legal Standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion 

 A motion to dismiss only tests the sufficiency of a complaint. In a light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, the Court must assume that the factual allegations are 

true and determine whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief. See 

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994); Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 

203 (6th Cir. 1996). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint’s 

“factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level on the assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations and 

emphasis omitted); see also Ass’n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 

Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007). “[T]hat a court must accept as true all of 

the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 1572
13 

Threadbare recitals of all the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

 The court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a 

factual allegation.” Id. at 679 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Moreover, “[o]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a 

motion to dismiss.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim 

for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw 

on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do 

not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the 

complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In sum, “[t]o survive a motion 

to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

 When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may not consider matters outside 

the pleadings. Weiner, 108 F.3d 86, 88 (6th Cir. 1997). However, “a court may 

consider any matters of which a court may take judicial notice without converting a 

party’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Id. Additionally, 

“[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of 

the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to 

her claim.” Id. at 89. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 1573
14 

2. Plaintiff’s Copyright Infringement Claim 

 Count I of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges a copyright 

infringement claim against Defendants under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Dkt. 43, ¶¶ 

75-86.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have willfully violated Plaintiff’s copyright 

by “writing, producing, and broadcasting” Empire, the infringement has occurred in 

Michigan because the show is broadcast and sold there, and Defendants have made, 

and will continue to make, unjust and substantial monetary gains. (Id.) 

 Because “copyright infringement lends itself readily to abusive litigation, 

since the high cost of trying such a case can force a defendant who might otherwise 

be successful in trial to settle in order to avoid the time and expenditure of a 

resource intensive case ... greater particularity in pleading, through showing 

‘plausible grounds’, is required.” Nat’l Bus. Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Credit Educ. & 

Consulting Inc., 299 F. App’x 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2008). Showing plausible grounds 

means pleading “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will 

reveal evidence of [copyright infringement].” Id. (internal citation omitted). 

 “The elements of a copyright-infringement claim are (1) ownership of the 

copyright by the plaintiff and (2) copying by the defendant.” Zomba Enterprises, Inc. 

v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). The first element is 

satisfied in this case, as Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s allegation that she 

holds the copyright to The Hidden Hand. The essential question is thus whether 

Defendants unlawfully copied any elements of Plaintiff’s memoir. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 1574
15 

 To establish that The Hidden Hand has been copied, Plaintiff must either 

introduce direct evidence of Defendants’ copying or prove it indirectly by showing 

that Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s work and that there is a substantial 

similarity between it and Empire, and in particular between Plaintiff as she depicts 

herself in the memoir and the character of Cookie Lyon, thus giving rise to an 

inference of copying. See Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999). 

 For purposes of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Defendants do not contest 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants had access to The Hidden Hand through Rita 

Grant Miller. (Dkt. 46, p. 9 n.6; Dkt. 54, p. 3.) The dispute at this stage is therefore 

about whether substantial similarities exist between these works. 

 Although access is not in dispute, the Sixth Circuit has indicated that proof of 

access can affect the degree of proof of similarity required to show copyright 

infringement and vice versa: 

[I]n some cases[,] the relationship between the degree of proof required for 

similarity and access may be inversely proportional: where the similarity 

between the two works is strong, less compelling proof of access may suffice. 

[Citing Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 507 (6th Cir. 2004).] See Three Boys 

Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that under 

the “inverse ratio rule,” a lower standard of proof of similarity is required 

where a high degree of access is shown); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 469 

(2d Cir. 1946) (stating that “a case could occur in which the similarities were 

so striking that we would reverse a finding of no access, despite weak 

evidence of access (or no evidence thereof other than the similarities).”) 

Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 293 (6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); 

see also Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e require a lower 

standard of proof on substantial similarity when a high degree of access is shown.”). 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 1575
16 

a. Determining Substantial Similarity 

 When determining whether two works are substantially similar, the Court 

engages in a two-step analysis. First, “the court must ‘filter’ out elements of the 

work that are not original to the author.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG 

Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Murray Hill Publ’ns, 

Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004)). 

Copyright protection is limited to the “expression of ideas” in a work – those aspects 

“that display the stamp of the author’s originality” – and does not extend to ideas 

themselves. Stromback, 384 F.3d at 296 (internal citations omitted). 

To be original, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight 

amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they 

possess some creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious’ it might be.” 

Murray Hill, 361 F.3d at 318 (quoting Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 

345 (1991)). While facts themselves are not protectable, “it is beyond dispute that 

compilations of facts are within the subject matter of copyright” even though 

“copyright in a factual compilation is thin.” Feist, 499 U.S. 340, 345, 349. To the 

extent that a “compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of words, 

he or she may be able to claim a copyright in this written expression.” Id. In short, 

an author’s selection and arrangement of facts, as well as her observations, if 

original, are protectable. See id. at 348. 

 Scènes à faire, or “scenes of action,” “the indispensable or standard aspects of 

a work, or those that ‘follow directly from unprotectable ideas’ should be filtered out 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 1576
17 

as well.” Bridgeport Music, 585 F.3d at 274 (footnote omitted) (quoting Murray Hill, 

361 F.3d at 320). “[N]atural elements in a story about a college fraternity,” for 

example, include “parties, alcohol, co-eds, and wild behavior.” Stromback, 384 F.3d 

at 298. “Elements such as drunks, prostitutes, vermin and derelict cars” would 

similarly not be afforded copyright protection “in any realistic work about [...] 

policemen in the South Bronx.” Id. (quoting Walker v. Time Life Films, 784 F.2d 44, 

50 (2nd Cir. 1986). 

 After filtering out the unprotectable elements, the works in question must be 

compared for substantial similarity. “Substantial similarity exists where the 

accused work is so similar to the plaintiff’s work that an ordinary reasonable person 

would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s 

protectable [sic] expression by taking material of substance and value.” Stromback, 

384 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation omitted). “[T]he copying of a relatively small but 

qualitatively important or crucial element can be an appropriate basis upon which 

to find substantial similarity.” Bridgestone, 585 F.3d at 275; see also Stromback, 384 

F.3d at 297 (“The misappropriation of even a small portion of a copyrighted work 

may constitute an infringement under certain circumstances. Even if a copied 

portion [is] relatively small in proportion to the entire work, if qualitatively 

important, the finder of fact may properly find substantial similarity.”). “[R]andom 

similarities scattered throughout the works are not a proper basis for a finding of 

substantial similarity.” Stromback, 384 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation omitted). 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 1577
18 

 As Defendants have filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court’s role at this stage 

is necessarily limited to deciding whether Plaintiff has plausibly established that 

copyrightable elements of her self-portrayal in The Hidden Hand are “substantially 

similar” enough to copyrightable elements of the character Cookie Lyon so as to 

raise an inference of copying.5 See Bowen v. Paisley, No. 3:13-0414, 2013 WL 

6237469, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2013).

b. Substantial Similarity between Plaintiff and Cookie Lyon 

 Here, the dispute is over whether two characters are substantially similar. 

Plaintiff alleges that the character of Sophia Eggleston in The Hidden Hand was 

copied and used as the basis for the character of Cookie Lyon on Empire in violation 

of Plaintiff’s copyright. 

                                                            

5 The Sixth Circuit has cautioned that granting summary judgment motions in copyright 

infringement cases is generally disfavored because the issue of “substantial similarity” can present a 

close factual question: 

In copyright infringement cases, “summary judgment, particularly in favor of a 

defendant, is a practice to be used sparingly” because substantial similarity is often 

an extremely close question of fact, but “a court may compare the two works and 

render a judgment for the defendant on the ground that as a matter of law a trier of 

fact would not be permitted to find substantial similarity.” 

Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485, 490 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 853 (6th 

Cir. 2003)). Summary judgment motions, unlike Rule 12(b)(6) motions, are premised on a developed 

record—often with the benefit of expert testimony. If summary judgment motions in these kinds of 

cases are to be granted “sparingly,” it is not surprising that this Court identified only a handful of 

cases within this circuit in which a district court granted a Rule 12 motion involving a copyright 

claim after conducting a substantial similarity analysis. See, e.g., Ford Motor Company v. Autel US 

Inc., 2015 WL 5729067, at *5 (E.D. Mich., 2015) (Rule 12 motion granted without prejudice, plaintiff 

granted leave to amend complaint); Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc. v. Brook of Cheboygan, Inc., 838 

F.Supp.2d 607, 613 (E.D. Mich., 2012) (same); Pollick v. Kimberly Clark–Corp., 817 F.Supp.2d 1005 

(E.D. Mich., 2011) (Rule 12 motion granted in favor of the defendant manufacturer of Huggies “jeans 

diapers” against the plaintiff holder of a copyright for “diaper jeans.”); National Business 

Development Services, Inc. v. American Credit Educ. & Consulting, Inc., 2007 WL 2318752, at *3 

(E.D. Mich., 2007) (Motion to dismiss granted because Plaintiff’s complaint contained a blanket 

assertion of entitlement to relief, but no factual allegations supporting that assertion.”). 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 1578
19 

 In National Business Development Services, Inc. v. American Credit 

Education and Consulting, Inc., 299 Fed. App’x. 509 (6th Cir. 2008), the Sixth 

Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because it contained a 

“blanket assertion of entitlement to relief” without “any factual allegations 

supporting that assertion.” 299 Fed. App’x. at 512. There was neither an 

identification of a work produced by the defendants that infringed upon the 

plaintiff’s copyrighted work, nor a description of the manner in which the 

defendants’ works infringed upon the plaintiff’s work. Id. The Sixth Circuit agreed 

with the district court that the plaintiff’s complaint amounted to no more than a 

speculative claim that the defendants may have produced some work that in some 

way infringed upon the plaintiff’s works and therefore was an insufficient pleading. 

Id. 

 In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lists twenty-three elements of her 

character in The Hidden Hand that she alleges have been copied by Defendants and 

used to create the character of Cookie Lyon on Empire. (Dkt. 43, ¶ 67.) Defendants 

argue that these elements are insufficient to establish substantial similarity 

between Plaintiff and Cookie Lyon because these elements are unprotectable “bare 

facts” from Plaintiff’s life story.6 (Dkt. 46, p. 22.) Plaintiff responds that what 

Defendants characterize as “bare facts” are “expressive characteristics” that define 

a character and represent a protectable compilation of experiences and traits. (Dkt 

                                                            

6 Defendants also argue that the plot, storyline, setting, pace, themes, and sequence of events are 

dissimilar between the two works. (Dkt. 46, pp. 22-32.) Because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

only contains the alleged similarities between Plaintiff as she depicted herself in her memoir and 

Cookie Lyon, the Court will focus its analysis on the similarities between these two characters only. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 1579
20 

52, pp. 22-23.) In short, Defendants assert that these twenty-three elements are 

distinct events, traits, or experiences that are unoriginal and unprotectable while 

Plaintiff argues that a character is more than the sum of its parts. 

 At first glance, many of the elements Plaintiff alleges were copied by 

Defendants seem like elements typical to stories about those involved in drugs and 

violence. It would not be atypical, for example, for the boss-type character of such a 

story to have sold drugs, to be a gang leader, to own firearms, to wear expensive 

clothing, to have an assertive or abrasive personality, to have been incarcerated, to 

have ordered a hit on someone else, or to have experienced the murder of a friend or 

family member. In this case, however, Plaintiff’s memoir features a woman in the 

dominant role as drug dealer, gang leader, and perpetrator of violence. This is not 

the stock and trade of the average drug gangster potboiler. More commonly, the 

gang leader, drug dealer, or boss-like figure is a man; here however, both Plaintiff 

and Cookie Lyon are light-skinned, African-American women.7 

 Some of the other alleged elements found in common between Eggleston and 

Cookie Lyon are also not obviously of the stock-standard variety, regardless of a 

character’s gender. For example, Plaintiff alleges that an element in common 

between herself and Cookie Lyon is that both have a gay family member. Plaintiff’s 

brother is gay, as is Cookie’s son, Jamal. Other unusual commonalities are that 

both Plaintiff and Cookie have experienced the kidnapping of one of their children, 

                                                            

7 At the motion hearing, Defense counsel could not offer examples of other works in this narrative 

genre that featured female characters in the “drug or organized crime boss-like” role. Other than the 

2011 telenovela series La reina del Sur produced by Telemundo or the 1999 Jorge Franco novel 

Rosario Tijeras, neither can this Court. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 1580
21 

have had two close family members murdered, have lost their lovers while serving 

time in jail, and have shielded others by stepping between them and a loaded gun. 

Taken together, these elements are arguably original and substantially similar. 

 In addition to alleging that substantial similarities exist between herself and 

Cookie Lyon, Plaintiff also presents strong and, for purposes of this motion, 

unchallenged, allegations that Defendants had access to her work through Rita 

Grant Miller. Plaintiff alleges that she met with Miller, that they discussed 

adapting The Hidden Hand, that a treatment was drafted, and that Defendants had 

access to her work, the treatment, and Rita Grant Miller’s interview notes when 

Miller met with Defendant Daniels to pitch the adaptation of The Hidden Hand. 

 As this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court is not reaching the merits of 

Plaintiff’s claim but is strictly limiting its inquiry to the sufficiency of the First 

Amended Complaint. Based on the record at this stage of litigation, Plaintiff has 

satisfied the “greater particularity in pleading” requirement for copyright actions. 

Plaintiff alleges that there are twenty-three elements in common between Sophia 

Eggleston as depicted in The Hidden Hand and Cookie Lyon as portrayed on 

Empire. While Defendants argue that the two works in question have little-tonothing in common with respect to setting, pace, narrative structure, or other 

characters, Plaintiff is not alleging otherwise. Plaintiff has thus sufficiently 

identified a work product that allegedly infringed on her copyrighted work and has 

described the manner in which Defendants’ work infringed upon Plaintiff’s product 

with adequate specificity to give Defendants notice of the claim against them. 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 1581
22 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegation that there are substantial similarities 

between these two works with respect to the characterization of Sophia Eggleston 

as depicted in the Hidden Hand and the fictional character Cookie Lyon as depicted 

on Empire is plead with sufficient facts to make it reasonable to expect that 

discovery may reveal evidence of copyright infringement and is therefore 

sufficiently plausible to survive a motion to dismiss. 

3. Plaintiff’s State Law Right of Publicity Claim 

Count II, however, is another story. Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint alleges, under Michigan common law, that Defendants appropriated her 

right to publicity. (Dkt. 43, ¶¶ 87-96.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that the 

portrayal of Cookie Lyon “uses the Plaintiff’s likeness, actions, attributes, speech, 

habits, and other identifiable characteristics” and that, as a result, Plaintiff “has 

suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages.” (Id. at ¶¶ 89, 96.) 

 Plaintiff has not plead sufficient facts to state a claim for the appropriation of 

her right to publicity in violation of Michigan common law and this claim will 

therefore be dismissed. The right of publicity protects the identity of a celebrity 

from exploitive commercial use. Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437, 459 (6th 

Cir. 2003). This right is governed by state law, and Michigan has recognized such a 

right. See Pallas v. Crowley, Milner & Co., 322 Mich. 411, 417 (1948). “A right of 

publicity claim is similar to a false advertising claim in that it grants a celebrity the 

right to protect an economic interest in his or her name.” Parks, 329 F.3d at 460. All 

that a plaintiff must prove in a right of publicity action is (1) that she has a 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 1582
23 

pecuniary interest in her identity, and (2) that her identity has been commercially 

exploited by a defendant. Id. 

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in the second version of her 

complaint establishing that she has a pecuniary interest or any commercial value in 

her identity. At the motion hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Plaintiff’s efforts 

to establish a pecuniary interest in her identity are sufficient to establish a 

protected right of publicity in that identity. While Plaintiff “need not be a national 

celebrity to prevail,” Plaintiff “must demonstrate that there is value in associating 

an item of commerce with [her] identity” in that “a merchant would gain significant 

commercial value by associating an article of commerce with [her].” Landham v. 

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 624 (6th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has made no 

such allegation, and the Court is satisfied that allowing Plaintiff to amend her 

complaint a second time would not cure this defect. Count II of the First Amended 

Complaint will therefore be dismissed. 

C. Defendant Daniels, Strong, and Spellman’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion 

The Individual Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that Plaintiff has failed to 

establish this Court’s jurisdiction over them. (Dkt. 48.) In particular, the Individual 

Defendants assert that they lack minimum contacts with Michigan and the Eastern 

District of Michigan and they cannot be fairly hailed into court in this state. (Id. at 

1.) Plaintiff asserts in her response to the Individual Defendants’ motion that 

sufficient minimum contacts exist because Empire is broadcast in Michigan, video 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 1583
24 

recordings of the show are sold in Michigan, and that several entertainment 

industry publications have reported that Defendant Daniels signed a contract with 

FOX to distribute the show nationally. (Dkt. 51, pp. 10-11.) As discovery has not yet 

taken place in this case, no such contract has been produced. 

1. Legal Standard 

 If a district court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants, dismissal is 

appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). “The burden of 

establishing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff.” Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prod., Inc., 993 

F.2d 528, 543 (6th Cir. 1993). “A district court, in its discretion ‘may decide the 

motion upon the affidavits alone; it may permit discovery in aid of deciding the 

motion; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any apparent factual 

questions.’” Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 449 (6th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991)). 

 A federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction over litigants must be both “(1) 

authorized by the law of the state in which it sits, and (2) in accordance with the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen 

Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 888 (6th Cir. 2002). For Michigan, the courts have 

determined Michigan’s long-arm statute gives the “maximum scope of personal 

jurisdiction permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1236 (6th Cir. 1981). Due process is 

satisfied if a defendant has “sufficient minimum contacts” with the forum state 

“such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fairplay 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 1584
25 

and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) 

(citation omitted). “But the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant 

and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary 

connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” 

Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014) (citing Burger King Corp. v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985)). 

 Personal jurisdiction issues in Michigan courts are governed by the state’s 

long-arm statute, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.715 (corporations) and 600.705 

(individuals). Further, Michigan courts and courts within this Circuit have 

consistently held that Michigan’s long-arm statute extends as far as the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause allows. See Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 888; see 

also Viches v. MLT, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 828, 830 (E.D. Mich. 2000)). Accordingly, if 

jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants in this Court is proper under the 

Fourteenth Amendment, it is also proper under Michigan’s long-arm statute. 

 Due process is satisfied if the defendants have “sufficient minimum contacts” 

with the forum state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 

‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Burger King Corp. v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). In order to find limited personal jurisdiction, a 

plaintiff needs to demonstrate three key factors: (1) the defendant must 

“purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state;” (2) “the 

cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there;” and (3) “the acts of 

the defendant...must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 1585
26 

make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.” Southern Mach. 

Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). All three factors must 

be present to allow for a finding of limited personal jurisdiction. 

2. Jurisdictional Discovery Warranted 

Plaintiff argues in her response brief that the Individual Defendants have 

entered into a nationwide distribution contract and the product in question has 

been distributed nationwide, therefore personal jurisdiction has been established in 

any forum where the product in question is sold. (Dkt. 51, p. 18.) In sum, Plaintiff 

asserts that there is personal jurisdiction in this case because the Individual 

Defendants themselves, through a distributor, have broadcast and sold Empire in 

Michigan. They have not only introduced Empire into the stream of commerce, but 

have also directed it toward Michigan. The Individual Defendants maintain that 

Plaintiff’s argument consists of factual misrepresentations supported by 

inadmissible hearsay. (Dkt. 55, pp. 2-4.) 

 As this Circuit has explained, “the stumbling block for a plaintiff alleging 

jurisdiction on the basis of a product’s availability in the forum state has ordinarily 

been that ‘minimum contacts’ includes not just the placement of the product in the 

stream of commerce, but ‘[a]dditional conduct of the defendant [that] may indicate 

an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State....’” Palnik v. Westlake 

Entertainment, Inc., 344 Fed. App’x. 249, 252 (2009) (quoting Asahi Metal 

Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987) (O’Connor, J., 

plurality opinion)). Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit has focused on the distribution 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 1586
27 

relationship in determining whether a producer has sufficient connection to a forum 

state for jurisdiction to be consistent with the due process clause. Id. 

For example, in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N the Water Publishing, 327 

F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit found that where a defendant was 

“merely aware” of the fact of nationwide distribution without control over said 

distribution, dismissal was appropriate. 327 F.3d at 480. By contrast, where a 

defendant sought nationwide distribution by contracting with a distributor for 

nationwide sales, the Sixth Circuit has found that a prima facie finding of 

jurisdiction exists. Id. at 483; see also Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 

528, 543 (6th Cir. 1993) (personal jurisdiction appropriate because the defendant 

“made a deliberate decision to market [its product] in all 50 states ....”); Poyner v. 

Erma Werke Gmbh, 618 F.2d 1186, 1190–91 (6th Cir. 1980). 

 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint that (1) the Individual 

Defendants “helped write, create, develop, produce, or otherwise make” Empire; and 

(2) Defendants Daniels and Strong direct Empire. (Dkt. 43, ¶¶ 29, 61.) Defendants 

collectively produced and earned money from the creation and distribution of 

Empire, which has been broadcast and distributed in Michigan. (See id. at ¶¶ 23, 

73, 82, 88.) Drawing inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court must at this stage 

of the litigation, the allegations in the complaint suggest that either the Individual 

Defendants, after making Empire, caused it to be distributed in Michigan through a 

national or regional distribution contract, or they were not necessarily responsible 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 1587
28 

for Empire appearing in Michigan, perhaps because they do not own the 

distribution rights, or deferred to a third-party distributor. 

The first scenario may permit personal jurisdiction, while the second scenario 

may not. See Palnik v. Westlake Entertainment, Inc., 344 Fed. App’x. 249, 252 

(2009). Because no discovery has yet been conducted in this case, it is unknown 

which scenario is more accurate. Consequently, the parties will be ordered to 

conduct thirty days of jurisdictional discovery. The Individual Defendants’ Rule 

12(b)(2) motion will therefore be denied without prejudice, but may be renewed once 

this jurisdictional discovery is complete. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

(Dkt. 46) is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Count II of Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint and DENIED IN PART with respect to Count I. Accordingly, 

Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will conduct limited 

jurisdictional discovery for no more than THIRTY DAYS from the date of this 

Opinion and Order. Such discovery must be limited to jurisdictional issues raised in 

or relevant to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Any 

party that believes the opposing party’s discovery requests exceed the scope and 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 1588
29 

purpose of limited jurisdictional discovery is instructed to contact the Court to 

arrange a telephone status conference. 

 Because the parties will conduct jurisdictional discovery, IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that Defendant Lee Daniels, Malcolm Spellman, and Daniel Strong’s 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. 48) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These defendants may re-file this motion 

after jurisdictional discovery is complete. 

 Defendants’ evidentiary objections (Dkt. 56) are DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE and may be renewed at the summary judgment phase. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 16, 2016 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on August 16, 2016, using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

 By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:15-cv-11893-TGB-EAS Doc # 61 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 1589