FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 4, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 71 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 02 72 4- CV-BB M-1
JEANETTE C. NICHOLSON, PHD. , an in di vi du al , CAREER ASSESS MENT ATLAN TA, INC., a Geo rg ia Co rp or at io n,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us
JAM ES C. SHAFE,
an in di vi du al , CAREER TRAINING CONCEPTS, INC., a Geo rg ia Co rp or at io n, SALES AND MANAGEMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE OF ATL ANTA, a p rev io us Geor gi a Co rp or at io n,
Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 4, 2 01 0)Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:
Pl ai nt iff Je an et te C. Nich ol so n, Ph.D. wor ks in th e fie ld of care er as se ss m en t

an d co un se li ng

. At th e req ue st of Defen da nt s Ja m es C

. S h a f e , C aree r Trai ni ng
Co nc ep ts , In c., an d Sal es an d Man ag em en t Trai ni ng In st it ut e of Atl an ta , sh e crea te d

a care er as se ss m en t to ol an d su pp or t m at e r i a l s fo r Defen da nt s’ care er as se ss m en t

pr og ram en ti tl e d “Fut ur e Fo cu s.” Nich ol so n la te r fil ed a co pyrig ht reg is tra ti on fo r

po rti on s o f th e Fu tu re Fo cu s m at eri al s s he ha d c reat ed

. I n N ov em

be r 20 03 , Nich ol so n an d Pl ai nt iff Care er Ass es sm en t Atl an ta , In c

. (“ Care er Ass es sme n t ”), an en ti ty th ro ug h whi ch Nich ol so n of fers he r pr of

es si on al

se rv ic es , fil ed su it ag ai ns t Defen da nt s in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tr i c t Co ur t fo r th e
Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia as se rti ng a cl ai m fo r co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t an d se ve ral

st at e la w cl ai m s (“ Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on ”). Defen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.
The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e po rti o n s o f F u tu re Fo cu s at is su e co ns ti tu te d a joi nt

wor k co -au th or ed by Defe nd an ts

. It he ld th at Defen da nt s h av e a co pyrig ht in te res t
in th e wor k at is su e an d th at Nich ol so n an d Care e r Ass es sm en t co ul d no t br in g a

co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t act io n ag ai ns t th em

. Acco rd in gl y , th e co ur t g r a nt ed
Defen da nt s su m

m ary jud gm en t an d dec li ne d to ret ai n juris di ct io n ov er Nich ol so n’s

an d C aree r Ass es sm en t’s s ta te law cl ai m s.

2In Sep te m be r 20 05 , Nich ol so n an d Care er Ass es sm en t fil ed su it ag ai ns t t he

sa m e Defen da nt s in th e Su pe rio r Co ur t of Gwin ne tt Co un ty, Geo rg i a s e e k i ng an

acco un ti ng of pr of

it s ari si ng fro m Defen da nt s’ us e of th e su bjec t wor k an d as se rti ng
cl ai m s fo r un

jus t en ric hm en t, br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, co m m on la w frau d an d de cei t,

co ns tr uc ti ve frau d, an d co nv ers io n. The st at e co ur t he ld th at th e req ue st fo r a

co pyrig ht acco un ti ng of pr of it s was pr eem

pt ed by fed eral co pyrig ht la w. Bu t th e cas e

pr oc eed ed to a jury tria l o n t he st at e la w cau se s o f act io n. A jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t
in fav or of Defen da nt s, an d th e co ur t en te red jud gm en t fo r Defen da nt s. The Geo rg ia

Co ur t o f App eal s u lt im at el y affi rm ed th at jud gm en t.

In Nov em

be r 20 07 , on th e sa m e da y Pl ai nt iff s ap pe a l e d t h e st at e co ur t jud gm en t to th e Geo rg ia Co ur t of A p pe al s, th ey fil ed a se co nd act io n in th e Uni te d

St at e s D i st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia req ue st in g a jud gm en t
de cl ari ng th at Pl ai nt iff

s and Defen da nt s ar e 5 0% c o- own ers of t he su bjec t wo rk , an

acco un ti ng of Defen da nt s’ pr of it s in th e su bjec t wor k, co st s, an d at to rn ey s’ fees (“ Seco nd Fe d e r a l A c t i on ”). The co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e su a sp on te fo r wan t of

su bjec t m at te r jur i s d i c t io n un de r th e Roo ker -Fel dma n do ct rin e, an d im po se d

sa nc ti on s. Pl ai nt iff

s app eal ed

. Afte r co nc lu di ng th at th e Roo ker -Fel dma n do ct rin e
di d no t di ve st th e di st ric t co ur t of juri sd ic ti on in th e Seco nd Fed eral Acti on , a pa ne l

3of th is co ur t rev ers ed th e di sm is sa l an d sa nc ti on s or de rs an d rema n de d th e cas e fo r

fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. Ni ch ol so n v. Sh af

e , 55 8 F.3 d 12 66 , 12 79 -8 0 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ).
Defen da nt s th en m ov ed to di sm is s th e Seco nd Fed eral Acti on o n s t at ut e of

l i mi t a t i on s, res jud ic at a, an d co ll at eral es to pp el gr ou nd s. And , Defen da nt s ag ai n

m ov ed fo r sa nc ti on s. The co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to di sm is s an d de ni ed th e m ot io n
fo r sa nc ti on s. Nich ol so n an d Care er Ass es sm en t ap pe al th e di sm is sa l of th e Seco nd
Fed eral Acti on , an d Defen da nt s mo v e fo r sa nc ti on s fo r th e fil in g of a fri vo lo us

ap pe al

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld t h a t di sm is sa l of th e Seco nd Fed eral Acti on was

warr a n t e d fo r th ree reas on s: (1 ) th e cl ai m s are ti m e ba rred by th e Co pyrig ht Act’s

st at ut e of li m it at io ns , 17 U.S.C. § 50 7( b) ; (2 ) th e cl ai m s are ba rred by th e do ct rin e of

res jud ic at a; an d (3 ) th e cl ai m s are ba rred by th e do ct rin e of co ll at eral es to pp el

. W e

m us t affi rm if di sm is sa l was warra nt ed on an y on e of th e s e th ree gr ou nd s. W e
ad dr es s on ly whe th er res jud ic at a at ta ch es to th e Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on so as to ba r th e
cl ai m s as se rte d i n t hi s Se co nd Fed eral Acti on . W e co nc lu de th at it do es

.

“ Res jud ic at a ba rs th e f

il in g of cl ai m s whi ch were rai se d or co ul d ha ve be en
rai se d in an earl ie r pr oc eed in g.” Rag sd al e v. Rub be rma id

, In c. , 19 3 F.3 d 12 35 , 12 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A cl ai m is ba rred by res jud ic at a if “ (1 ) th ere is

a fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts ; (2 ) th e de ci si on was ren de red by a co ur t of co m pe te nt

4juri sd ic ti on ; (3 ) th e pa rti es . . . are id en ti cal in bo th su it s; an d (4 ) th e sa m e cau se of

act io n is in vo lv ed in bo th cas es .” Id

. W it ho ut qu es ti on , th e fir st th ree elem en ts are

sa ti sf ie d: (1 ) Defen da nt s were gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in th e Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on ; (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on to en te r th at jud gm en t; an d (3 ) th e pa rti es to th e
Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on an d th e Seco nd Fed eral Acti on are th e s a me. At is su e is th e
fo ur th el em en t: whe th er th e sa m e cau se of act io n is in vo lv ed in bo th th e Fi rs t Fed eral
Acti on an d th e Seco nd Fed eral Acti on

. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ if a cas e ari se s ou t
of th e sa m e nu cl eu s of op erat iv e fact , or is ba se d up on th e sa m e fact ua l pr ed ic at e, as

a fo rm er act io n,

. . . th e two cas es are real ly th e sa m e ‘clai m ’ or ‘caus e of act io n’ fo r

pu rp o s es of res jud ic at a.” Id

. at 12 39 (q uo ti ng Ci ti ba nk
, N.A. v. Dat a Lea se Fin

. Co rp

. , 9 04 F.2d 14 98 , 15 03 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). After rev ie w of b ot h c as es , we a gr ee
wit h th e di st ric t cou rt’s an al y si s co nc lu di ng th at cl ai m s as se rte d in th e Fi rs t Fed eral
Acti on sh ared th e sa m e n uc le us of o pe rat iv e fac ts as cl ai m s as se rte d in th is Seco nd
Fed eral Acti on an d th at no th in g pr ec lu de d Nich ol so n an d Care er Ass es sm en t fro m

se ek in g a de cl arat io n of joi nt own ers hi p of t h e s ub ject wor k an d an acco un ti ng of

pr of it s i n th e Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on

. (R.3 -6 9 at 13 -1 7.) Bec au se th e Sec on d F ed eral
Acti on as se rts cl ai m s th at co ul d ha ve be en rai se d in th e Fi rs t Fed eral Acti on , res jud ic at a ap pl ie s, an d t he cla im s wer e ap pr op ria te ly dis m is se d.

5W e de cl in e to s a n c t i o n P la in ti ffs fo r th e fil in g of th is ap pe al

. In th is co ur t’s

op in io n rev ers in g th e pr io r di sm is sa l fo r wan t of juri sd ic ti on an d va cat in g th e award
of sa nc ti o ns , we no te d th at it was “ at le as t arg ua bl e” th at ne it he r res jud ic at a no r

co ll at eral es to pp el wou ld ba r th e Seco nd Fed eral Act i o n

. N i ch ol so n , 55 8 F.3 d at
12 80

. Giv en th at we pr ev io us ly su gg es te d th at at le as t two of th e arg um en ts Pl ai nt iff s
ha ve rai se d in th is ap pe al are no t fri vo l o u s , w e co nc lu de th at sa nc ti on s are no t

warra nt ed

. DISMI SSAL AFFIR MED; M OTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED.

6