## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08
- 3810 , 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 S YL J OH NS ON, al so known as S YLV ESTER T H OM PS ON, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C YPRESS H IL L, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No s. 1: 03-cv -09452 &1:08- cv-07264

—Charle s R. Norgle, Sr. , Judg e. A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 10, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 1, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Ci r c u i tJu dge . Syl J ohnson, an Am er i can bl ues an d soulsinger

— we l lkno wn i n the 1 9 6 0 s a nd 19 70s f o rhi s ex pl o r at i o n o f A fr i ca n- Am er i ca n i den ti tya nd s o c i a lp r o b l e ms

— w ro te a s ong enti tled, “I s I t Because2 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733

Th e s on g i s a va i l a bl e a t : h t t p: //www . yo utub e . c om/wat c h? v= 1 z K fZ Y g H m 8 S o (la st v isi te d M a y 17, 20 1 1 ). T he m em b ers of C y p ress H ill

— Law rence M ugg erud, S enen 2 R ey es, an d L ou i s F reese

— are also n am ed d efend an ts. W e w ill refer to th e d efend an ts collectiv ely as C y p ress H ill. The t r a c k i n q u e s t i o n i s t i t l e d, “ I n t e r l u de ” o n s o me c o p i e s of 3 “Black S u n day ” and “L ock D ow n” on others
. The trac ks ar e i d e n t i c a l
. “ I n t e r l u d e ” i s a v a i l a b l e a t : h t t p : //w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m/ w a tc h ?v = a A D H 4 1 4 8 iQ o (la st v isi te d M a y 17, 20 1 1 ). I ’m Black ” (the “Son g”). Tw e nt y-fi ve years later, 1 Cy pr e s s Hi l l , a n e xt r e mel y po pu l a r a nd s uc c e s s ful hi p- 2 hop gr oup, r el eas ed the album , “Bl ack Sunday. ” One o f the t ra cks on “ Blac k S und ay, ” t itled “I nter l ud e, ” pl ays 3 a s ecti on o fJ ohnson’ s S ong. I n 20 0 3 , J o h n s o n fi l e d s u i ta g a i n s tC y p r e s s Hi l la l l e g i ng cop yright infri ng em en t of th e Son g . O ver four years into li tigation, th e d is t rict j ud ge gran ted Cy p ress H il l’ s m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent a fterco nclud i ng tha t J o hns o n f ai l ed to pr o ve he he l d a v al i d c o py r i g hti n the So ng. J ohnson now appeal s. I n 1 96 8, J o hns o n, workingwi thGl enn W at ts a nd J i m m yJ o ne s , wr o t e “ I s I tBe c a us e I ’ m Bl a c k
. ” In 1 9 6 9, Twi ni g htRe co r ds rele as ed a r ec o r ded ve r si o n o fthe So ng as a 45- RPM
. That s am e y ear, th e Song r eached num ber11 o n t h e R& B chart s. In 197 2, J ohnson re re cor ded t h e So ng. The 19 72 re cor ding w as never re l eas ed i n the U ni ted S tat es. In 199 7, J ohn son appli ed for a nd r ecei ved U ni ted S tat es copyr i ght r egi st r at i o n SR U -3 60
- 89 1 f o ra s o und r ec o r di ngc o m pi l at i o n.N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 3

In M arc h 2 00 4, Cy p ress H ill did r e a c h an ag reem en t w ith 4 Sunlight R ecords, Inc
. ( ow ned b y P ete r W ri ght, the co- ow ner ofTwini ghtRec or ds ) whi c h c l ai m ed thati twas the ho l der of all rig hts in th e So ng . T he d eal for th e licens e w a s rou g hly $2 5,000 an d release d C y p ress H ill and its lic e nsee s fro m all p ast, prese nt, and f u tu re claim s related to C y p ress H ill’ s use o f th e S o n g in “I n te rl u d e.” A “sou nd reco r d i n g ” co p y rig ht p ro tects righ ts in a sp ecific 5 reco rd ing of a m u sical w or k
. A sou nd reco rd ing cop y rig ht is (co n tin u ed ...) J ohnson bel i eve d that he i nclu ded the 1972 r eco rdi ng o f th e S o ng i n h i s su bmi ss i o n, b uthe di d no t. The r efo r e, the So n g w as n otco v e r e d by a va lid fed er al c op yr igh t. In J une 200 3, W att s filed a For m PA co m posi ti on co pyri ght r egi str ati on o n the w or ds and m usi c o fthe So ng, l i st i ngJ o hns o n a nd J one s a s co - au th o r s. The Co py r i g ht Offi ce a ssi gned i t r egi str ati on num berPA 1- 192- 702. I n 1 9 9 3 , C y p r e s s H i l l r e l e a s e d i t s “ B l a c kS u n d a y ” a lb u m. Th e s o ng i n qu e s t i o n i n thi s c a s e , “ I nt e r l ud e , ” i s a 77
- secon d song in t h e m id d le ofthe 14 -track album
. “I nt erl ud e ” i nc l ud e s 2
. 5 s e c o nd s o fJ o hn s o n’ s S o ng“ l o o pe d” for th e e n tir e 7 7 s ec on d s. C yp re ss H i ll ad m its th at it f ai l ed to o btain perm i ssi on fro m J ohnson to use the S ong. 4 I n 200 3, J ohnson

— afte rl i st en i ngt o “ I nt er l ude ” an d deci ding that hi s S ong w as used

— fi l ed a pro sec o mpla i nt ag ai nst Cypre ss H i l lal l eging co pyri ght infr i ngem en t an d a s ta te l aw fr au d c l ai m . F o urm ont hs l ate r, aftero btaini ng co unsel, J oh nson fi l ed an am ended c om p l ai nt as ser ti ng a singl e cl ai m , i nfr i ngem ent o f the s ound reco rdi ng co pyri ght S RU
- 360- 891 , aski ng f or 54 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 d istinct fro m a “co m p osition ” co p y rig ht, w hich p ro tects ri ghts in the und erl ying w ork, i
. e. , the m usi c and , i fapp li cable, ly ri cs . 17 U .S.C . § 1 0 2 (a )(2), (7 ). a s ta gg er in g $ 29 ,00 0,0 0 0 in re lief. Joh n so n m ad e t h is cl ai m under the m i sta ken b el i efthathi s S ong w as co ve r ed bythe cop yright. At n o po i ntdur i ngthe ne xt fou r ye ar s d id h e c h ec k t o m ak e s u re it w as ac t u ally c o v e r e d. I n Mar ch2 00 6, Pe te rW r i g ht, a n o wnero fTwi ni g ht Recor ds, fi led a decl ar ati on s tat i ng tha t the S RU
- 360- 891 re gis tr at ion d id n otinc lu d e a rec or d in g of t h e So n g. In Ju n e 2 00 6, Joh n so n ’s c o-w ri te r, W at ts , fi led a law su it aga i nst Cypre ss H i l lcl ai m i ng i nfr i ngem ent o fco pyri ghts P A 1-1 92 -70 2 a n d SR U -36 0-8 91 (th e SR U -3 6 0
- 8 91 cla im wa s l a t e rdr o pp e d)
. In Oc t o b e r2 0 0 7, La wr e nc e Mu ggeru d , the m em ber of Cyp ress H ill w ho crea ted “I nt erl ud e,” t es ti fi ed that he ca m e a cro ss the S ong on the 19 69 45- RPM singl e r el eas ed by T w ini ght Rec or ds. Thi s l ast eve nt i s par ti cul ar l y c ruci alto Jo hnson’ s cl ai m bec ause, un d er the C op yright A ct, soun d rec o r d in gs fi xe d before F eb r ua r y 1 5, 1 972 ar e no t subj ec t to c opyr i ghtpr o te ct i o n, b u t m ay be p ro te c te d by st at e la w . See 17 U
. S. C
. § 301(c). O n c e Jo h n so n affirm at ive ly kn ew th at C y p r e ss H ill used the 1 969 ver si on, ther e was no si tuati on under whi chhi s so und r ec ordi ngc o py r i g hti nfr i ng ement c l a i m co ul d s uc c e e d. M eanw hi l e, the parti es i ni ti ate d and p ro ceeded w i th d i s c o v e r y o n th e a l l e g a t i o n s i n J o h n s o n ’ s a me n d e d c o m-N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 5 p l a i n t, n a me l y th e a l l e g e d c o p y r i g h ti n fr i n g e me n to fS R U360- 891. A t the close ofl ong and protr acte d discove rypro cee d in gs, and i n acco rdance w i th the di str i ct j u d g e ’ s o r d e r, C y p r e s s H i l lfi l e d a mo t i o n f o rs u mm ar y j ud gm ent in Feb ruar y 2 008. C yp re ss H i l lar gued th atJ o hns o n c o ul d no t p r o ve i nfr i ng emento fc o py r i g ht SRU

- 360- 891 because : ( 1) ther e i s no copyr igh t p ro tecti on fora 1969 so und r eco rd i ng; and ( 2) the com pil ati on s ubm i tte d for the S RU
- 360- 891 copyr i ght di d not i ncl ud e a ny ve rs i on o fthe So ng. John son resp ond ed , in his brief op p osin g su m m ary j u d g me n t, b y a r g ui ng

— f o rth e fi r s tt i me

— that he was enti tl ed to r el i efunder co m m on l aw m i sappropri ati on and i nfr i ngem ent o fthe com posi ti on co pyri ght PA 1- 192- 70 2. He con ce ded th athi s 19 69 r ec o r di ngo fthe S o ng cannot obt ai n a s ound reco rdi ng co pyri ght. I n M a y 2 0 0 8 , J o hn s o n fi l e d a mot i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a se co nd a m en ded co m pl aint . The pr o po se d a m en dm en t r eda ct ed J o hns o n’ s cl ai m f o ri nfr i ng emento fhi s so und re cor ding copyr i ght a nd subst itu ted cl ai m s forco m m on l aw m i sappropri ati on a nd i nfr i ngem ent o fco m posi ti on cop yright PA 1-192-702. T he j ud ge d en ie d J ohn son ’s m oti on, fi nd i ng tha t l eave to am end w as not w ar ra nted due t o J o hns o n’ s undue d ela y a nd the “ su bs ta nt i alpr ej udi ce ” to Cy pr es s H i l ltha t woul d r es ul t from a l l o wi ng ana m en dm en t foury ea r s i nt o l i ti g at i o n a nd a fte rthe cl ose o fdi sco ver y. The j ud ge then g ra nted Cypress H i l l ’ s m o ti o n fo rsu m m ar y j udg m en t, fi ndi ngtha t th e com pil ati on o f s on gs J ohnson subm i tte d to the Copyr i g htOff i ce d i d n o ti nc l ud e ar e c o r di ngo fthe S o nga nd ,6 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 th erefore, J ohn son had “fa ile d entirely to sh ow ow ne rsh ip of a v alid co p yr igh t in th e 1 96 9 s ou n d rec or d in g.” J ohnson filed a m oti on under Rul e 6 0( b) o fthe Feder al Rules o fCi vi lPro cedure re questi ng tha t the co urt vacat e i ts s ummar y j ud g men t o r de r a nd e nt e r a n o r de r dism iss i ng the cas e forl ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on pu rs uant to Fe d . R . C i v. P. 12 ( h)( 3)
. J ohnson ar gued th at bec au se he nev er had a cop yrigh t t h e d istri ct cou rt di d no t ha ve s ubj ec t- m at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n over the a ct i o n. The c o ur t den i ed hi s m o ti o n. Cypr es s H i l lthe n fi l ed a m o ti o n fo ra tt o r ne y ’ s fee s an d cos ts pu rsuant to 17U
. S. C. § 5 05, ar gui ng tha t J ohnson knew o r shoul d have know n fro m the outse t o fthe l i ti gati on that he had no val i d cl ai m f ori nfr i ngem ent o fcopyri ght SR U
- 360- 891 because no ver si on o fthe So ng was i ncl ud ed i n hi s r egi ste re d com p i l ati on, and the 1969 re cor ding could n ot be copyr i ghted. J ohnson re sponded by m ai ntai ni ng tha t the ac ti on s houl d have be en di sm i sse d fo r l ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uri sd ict ion, and ther ef or e 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 919, wh i ch p ro vid es f oran a w ar d of “j us t costs,” shou ld govern the aw a r d . T he cou rt g r an te d Cy pr es s H i l l ’ s m oti o n fo ra tt o r ne y ’ s fee s an d cos ts, fi nd i ng tha t J ohnson’ s a m ended com pla i nt was “legall y baseles s” as h e cou ld n ot d em ons trate ow ne rshi p ofa val i d copyr i ght in the So ng. T h e c ou rt r educed Cypr es s H i l l ’ s r equeste d a tt o r ne y ’ s fee s by1 5%, a nd aw ar ded $3 21, 995. 25 i n att or ney’s fees and $10 , 620. 53 i n cos ts. I n Octobe r 2008, J ohnson fi l ed a new acti on a gainst Cypress H i l lin the Ci rcui t Cour t o fCookCounty (Johns onN os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 7 II) , r ea ss er tingthe s ta te l aw mi sa pp ro pr i at i o n c l ai m he ha d attem p ted to a dd i n Johns on I
. Cypres s Hil lr em ove d the ac ti on t o federal co urt base d on di ver si ty j u ris d ict ion . A fte r re m ov al, Joh n so n m ov ed to file ana m en ded co m pl aint

— a cl ai m f ori n frin gem ent o f co m po si ti o n cop yr i g htPA 1
- 19 2- 70 2. At thi s po i nt, J o hnson’ s c lai m was i denti calto the cl ai m i n the am ended com pla i nt he tr i ed to fi l e withou t su cces s in the or i gi nal ca se . Acco r di ng l y, Cypr es s H i l lmove d t o di smi ss the am en d ed com pla i nt as bar re d by res judicat a . The j ud ge g r an te d the mot i o n t o di smi ss wi thpr ej udi ce , ho l di ng that the Johnson II cl ai m s were bar re d by res judicat a . O n ap p eal, J o h n s on argu es th at: ( 1) the d istri ct cou rt abused i ts d iscr eti on in denyi ng hi s m oti on forl eave to am end; ( 2) the cour t l acke d subj ect- m att erj uri sdic

ti on o verthe acti on a nd ther ef or e was w ithout pow er to grant sum m ary j ud gm en t on th e m erits; (3) the cou rt e r r e d in g r a nt i nga t t o r ne ys’ fe e s p ur s ua ntt o 1 7U. S
. C. § 505; an d ( 4) the cou rt erred in fi nd ing John son ’s amende d c o m pl ainti n Johnson II w as bar re d by res judicat a . W e be g i n wi thJ o hn son ’ s pr i m ary c l ai m ; tha t th e j ud ge abused hi s di scr eti on in de n yin g hi s m oti on for leave to am en d
. W e review a district j ud ge’s de nial ofa m o ti o n fo rl ea ve t o a m en d f o rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Tru s t m ark Ins uranc e Co. v. Gen e ral & Colog ne Life Re of A m er ica , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d 5 42, 5 5 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. Al tho ugh F e d. R. Ci v. P. 15 ( a) pro vi des thatl eav e to am end “ ‘ shal lbe fre el y g i ven when j usti ce s o re quir es, ’ [ i t] i s no t t o be autom atic all y g ra nted. ” Johns on v. M e t hodis tM e di ca l C ent erof Ill
. , 10 F. 3d 1 30 0, 1303 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. “[ Dist ri ct]8 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733
co ur ts ha ve b r o ad di sc r eti on to den y l ea ve t o a m en d w here ther e i s und ue del ay, bad f ai th, dil ato rym oti ve, re peated f ai l ure to cure defi ci enci es, undu e pr ej ud i ce t o the defendants, or w here the am endm ent woul d be futi l e. ” H uk ic v. A uro ra L o a n S ervic es , 58 8 F
. 3d 4 20, 43 2 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ) (int er n a l c i t at ion om itt ed ). A n d w h ile d elay on its ow n is u s u a ll y not reaso n en ou gh f or a court to d en y a m ot ion to am en d , D ubicz v. C om m onw ealth Edis on Co. , 377 F. 3d 787, 792- 93 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , the “l onge r th e del ay, the g r ea te rthe pr es um pti o n a gainst g r an ting l eave to am end. ” Kin g v . Cooke, 26 F. 3d 720, 723 (7th Cir. 1994 ) (i nt erna l citation om itted ). The di st r i ctj udg e de ni ed the m o ti o n, f i ndi ngtha t J o hnson’s fou r- yea r w ai t t o am end his co m pla i nt, afterdi sc o v e r y c l o s e d a n d C y p r e s s H i l l fi l e d i t s m o t i o n f o r s u mm ar y jud gm en t, w as u n d u e d ela y. Joh n so n arg u es in r es po ns e tha t he made hi s m o ti o n s ho r tly a fte rl ea r ni ng th a tth e S o n gC y p r e s s Hi l lu s e d wa s th e 1 9 6 9 v e r si o n, not the 1 972 ver si on. But J ohnson’ s a rgum ent f ai l s for seve ra lr eas ons. Fi rs t, as the j ud ge note d, i n M ar ch, 20 06, J ohnson w as o n n o ti ce tha t hi s cl ai m was de fi ci en t wh en W righ t ( th e own er o f T w i ni ght Rec or ds) sta ted i n hi s decl ar ati on that the t ape J ohnson subm i tte d to the Copyr i ght Offi ce d id n otinc lu d e a rec or d in g of t h e So n g. Se c on d , in M ay2 00 7, J ohn son ’ s co - au th o r, W at ts , wi th dr ew the i n fr i n g e me n tc l a i m f o rs o u n d r e c o r d i n gc o py r i g h tS R U360- 891 fro m hi s co m pla i nt, and l eft o nl y his cla i m under com posi ti on co pyri ght PA 1- 192- 702. Thi rd, i n Octobe r 2007, Jo hnson l earned f ro m M uggerud ’ s deposi ti onN os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 9 tes ti m ony that hi s cl aim u n d erS RU
- 360- 891 w as base

les s. Y etJoh n so n d id n otfile a m ot ion to am en d h is com p lai nt un tilM ay 2008 , se ven m ont hs after M ug geru d ’s depo si ti on r eve al ed that Cypress H i l lused the 19 69 version o f t h e Son g (w hich cou ld n ot be cop yrighted ), and year s a fterhe was o n noti ce that the S RU
- 360- 891 copyr i ght di d not co verth e So n g. A ccor dingl y, the j ud ge d id n ot abu se his d iscret io n w he n h e d en ied John son ’s m ot ion to am en d th e co m p lain t. See, e.g., M etho dist, 10 F.3 d at13 04 ( affi rm i ng deni alo fm oti on t o am end w hen dist ri ct j ud ge f ound th at eve n i fpl ai nti ff’ s pro posed am en dm en t wer e ba se d o n inf o r m at i o n l ea r ne d dur i ng deposi ti on s, pla i nti ffdi d not m ove unti lf our orfi ve m on th s la te r); Fel dm an v. A m er ican M em orial LifeInsu ra nce C o. , 1 9 6 F
. 3 d 7 8 3 , 7 9 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( a ffi r mi ngde ni al ofm oti on t o am end b as ed o n fi ve- m onth del ay after di sc o ve r i ngthe f ac ts tha t a ll eg edly ne ce ss i ta te d the am en d m en t); Per r i an v. O ’ Grady, 95 8 F
. 2d 192, 19 5 ( 7th Cir
. 19 92) ( affi rm i ng deni alo fm oti on t o am end w hen pl aint i ff“ ha[d] no t ex pl aine d why he wai te d [ th r ee a nd a ha lfm ont hs ]” to add ad d iti ona l d efend an ts). M or eov er, the j ud ge f ound that J ohnson’ s new state l aw cl ai m s form i sappropri ati on would cause Cypres s H i l lsubst anti alprej ud i ce. J ohnson ar gues, how ev er, that th e se co nd a m en ded co m pl aintwas m er ely c l ar i fy i ng the l ega lbas is on w hi ch he was r el yi ng. A gain, J ohnson m i s s t a t e s th e f a c t s . J o h n s o n ’ s a me n d e d c o mpl a i nt so ughtt o dr op h is cl ai m o fs o und r ec o r di ngc o py r i g ht i nfr i ngem ent o fS RU
- 360- 891 an d intr oduce two new c l a i ms: a cl a i m f o rs t a t e l a w mi s a pp r o pr i a t i o n, a nd a cl ai m f or i nfr i ngem ent ofco m posi ti on co pyri ght PA 1- 192-10 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 70 2. D isc ov er y h ad lon g b ee n clo se d , an d C yp re ss H ill ha d fi l ed a m o ti on f o rs um m ary j udg m en t. Al l o wi ng J ohnson to am end his c om p lai nt would m ean a dd i ti onal disc ove ryf ocuse d on wh etherm isa pp ro pri ati on had oc c u rre d u n d er Il lin ois st at e la w . Se e Board of Trad e of the City of C hic a go v . D ow Jone s & Co. , Inc. , 45 6 N
. E.2 d 84, 88
- 89 ( I l l
. 19 83)
. Thus, i n additi on t o the l engthydel ay, allo w i ng J ohnson to change the c ours e o fthe l i ti gat i on f our yea rs into the case would be prej ud i ci alto Cypres s H ill. See M etho dist, 10 F. 3d at 1302
- 04. F ur th er m o r e, “ [ t] he r e m us t be a po i nta t whi cha p lain tiff m ak es a c om m itm en t to th e t h eo ry of [h is] c as e.” M etho dist, 10 F. 3d at 1304
. J ohnson’ s r eq u est to change h is claim s on th e eve of su m m ar y j u d gm en t i s e x a c tly th e s or t o f sw itc h er oo w e h av e c ou n se led ag ain st . See, e.g., Fe l dm an , 19 6 F
. 3d at 793 ( fi nd i ng tha t the prej ud i ce that wo ul d r e sul t f r o m a men dme nttha two ul d h a v e a dde d a ne w cl ai m “ wel la fte rthe c l ose o fdi sc o ve r y a nd o n the e v e o f s ummar y j ud g men t pr o c e e di ng s ” wa s s o a pparent that the di str i ct c ourtwas not re q u ire d to articu late the ba sis for i ts d ecision). Joh n so n ’s s ec on d cla im is th at th e d ist ric t jud ge d id no t ha ve the a uthorityt o e nt ers um m ary j udg m en t be ca us e hi s f ai l ur e to r eg i st era co py r i g htde pr i ve d the cour t of subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on a nd , ther ef or e, th e ac ti o n s ho ul d ha ve b ee n di smi ss ed pur su an t to F ed. R. Civ. P. 12 ( h)( 3)
. W e r evi ew qu es tions ofsubj ect- m att er j ur i sdi ct i o n deno vo . Schur v. L. A
. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. , 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009).N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 11 A s Cypre ss H i l lnot es, and as J ohnson ackno w l edged ato r ala r g um en t, thi s cl ai m f ai l s. In Ree d Els e vi e r, Inc . v. M uchnick, 1 30 S
. C t. 12 37( 20 10 ) , the Co ur t he l d tha t th e copyr i ght r egi str ati on r equi re m ent o f17U
. S. C. § 4 11( a) “i s a pre condi ti on t o fi l i ng a cl ai m thatdoes notr estri ct a federa lc ou rt ’ s s ubj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on. ” Id. at12 41. T he refore , Johns on’s argu m en t tha t the district cou rt l acke d s ubj ect- m att er j uri sdic ti on ove r hi s cl aim fai l s, as i t i s for ecl ose d by R eed E lsevier
. The co urt h ad j uri sdict i on a nd pro perl y g ra nt ed C ypre ss H i l l ’ s m oti on t o d ism iss , as Jo h n so n failed to p ro ve a va lid co p yr igh t in the S ong. Johnso n’ s th i r d a r g um en t i s th atthe di st r i ctc o urt i m proper l y aw ar ded at torney’ s fees under 17U
. S. C. § 5 05. Section 505 of th e C op yright A ct al low s a d istri ct cou rt to a war d b o th c ost s an d a tt o r ne y ’ s fee s to a “ pr ev ai l i ng p ar ty ” in a c op y r i g h t in frin ge m en t a c tio n . Se eal s o, Wo o d h a ven Hom es & Realty, Inc. v. Hotz , 3 9 6 F
. 3 d 8 2 2, 824 (7th Cir. 2005) ( quoti ng A ssess m entTechnologies of W I, L L Cv. W

IR E da ta, Inc., 36 1 F
. 3d 43 4, 4 37( 7th Ci r . 2004)) ( “W hen the preva iling partyi s the defendant, wh o by defi n i t i o n r e c e i v e s n o ta s ma l la wa r d b u tn o a wa r d , the p resu m p tion in favor ofaw ard ing fees i s very stron g”). J ohnson ar gues that the j ud ge in c or re ctl y g ra nted fees und erS ecti on 5 05 because the cour t di d not hav e su bj ect-m atter j urisd iction. A s w e j us t note d , how ever, un d er R eed E lsevierthe cour t had sub j ec t-m att erj uri sdict i on a nd , ther ef or e, co rr ectly a pp l i ed Se cti on 5 05. T h u s, th e on ly q u es tio n is w h et h er th e j u d g e p r op er ly aw ar ded fees .12 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 The j ud ge f ound that be cause i t was undisputed th atCypr es s Hi l lwas the pr ev ai l i ngpa r ty, a nd tha t J o hnson’ s infr i ngem ent c laim was l ega l l y b ase l ess

— h e d id no t hav e a va l i d c o py r i g hti n the S o ng

— he co uld not ove rco m e the “v er y s tr ong” pre sum pti on t o gr ant r easonab l e co sts and att or ney’ s fees . W e a gr ee. J ohnson m a intaine d his clai m un d er SRU -360-891 for fou r years des pi te c l ea rno ti ce tha t th e cl ai m was fr i vo l o us a nd obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, as the So ng was not cov ered u n d er th e c op yr igh t a n d , m or eo ve r, w as n oteligib le f orco pyri ght pr ote cti on. S e e Wo o dh a ven , 39 6 F
. 3d at 824. He h a s do ne not hi ng t o r e b utthe p r e s umpt i o n. Ac c o r dingly, th e j ud ge p rop erly aw ard ed costs an d attorn ey’s fees to Cypres s Hil lunder S ecti on 5 05. Joh n so n ’s fin al c l a i m is th at th e jud ge im p ro p er ly h eld that the Johnson II

am ended com pla i nt w as b ar re d by res j u di cata . W e review the d istri ct cou rt’s dism issal of a l aws ui t o n re s j udi ca t a gr ounds deno vo . Ta rtt v. No rthw est C o m m un ity Hospi t al , 453 F.3d 81 7, 82 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). Res judicat a pro hib its part i es “fro m r e- l i ti gat i ng i ssues that w er e o r coul d h ave been ra i sed i n” a previ ous a cti on i n w hi ch ther e was fi nalj ud gm ent o n the m erits
. H ighway JCi t ize ns Gr oup v. U
. S. D ep’ tof Tra nsp o rt at i on , 45 6 F .3 d 73 4, 74 1 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). E ss en tia lly, re s j u d i c at a e mbodi es th e p rincipl e that “ cl ai m s ‘ base d on the sam e, o r n ea rly th e s am e, fac tu al a l l eg at ion s’ m u st be j oin ed ,” Robos e r ve, Inc . v. Kat o Kagaku Co. , Ltd ., 1 21 F. 3d 1027, 10 34 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97), and a pri orj ud gm ent c an “for ecl os[ e] l i t i g a t i o n o fa ma t t e rtha tn e v e rh a s b e e n l i t i ga t e d, because o fa d eterm i nati on that i t s houl d have be enN os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 13 advanced i n an e ar l i ersui t. ” M igra v. War re n C ity School D i s t r i ctBoar d of

Educ at i on , 465 U
. S. 75, 77 n
. 1 (1984). For re s j u d i ca t a to apply, thr ee f acto rs ar e nec ess ar y: “( 1) an i denti ty ofthe parti es orthei r pri vi es; ( 2) an i denti ty ofthe cause ofacti on; and ( 3) a fi nalj ud gm ent o n th e m er i ts [ i n the ear l i eract i on]
. ” P roc ho tsky v. B a k er & M cKenzie, 96 6 F
. 2d 333, 33 4 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 2). A cause o f actio n m eans “ ‘ a s i ngl e co re o fo perat i ve f acts ’ wh i ch g i v e r i s e t o a r e med y .” G o lden v. B a renbo rg, 53 F. 3d 86 6, 86 9 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ) (int er n al c ita tio nom itt ed ). Joh n so n co n c ed es th at t h e s am e p ar tie s a re inv olv ed in both acti ons, but ar gues that the c l ai m s a re noti denti cal an d th at th er e w as n o fin al jud gm en t o n t h e m e r its in the fi rs t a cti on. J ohnson’ s a rgum ent f ai l s on b oth poi nts. F i r s t, J o h n s o n a s s e r t s th a tth e c l a i ms a r e n o tth e s a me be ca us e th e o r i g i na l ac ti o n was b as ed o n c o py r i g hti nfringem ent, wh er eas Johnson II i s ba sed o n sta te cl ai m s o f unfai r com peti ti on a nd m i sappropri ati on. But, as Cypres s H i l lcorre c tly note s, “[ t] w o cl ai m s a re o ne f orpurposes of re s jud ica ta if th ey a r e ba se d on th e s am e, or n ea rly the s am e, f actualal l ega ti ons. ” Tartt, 4 53 F
. 3d at 82 2 ( i nte rn al c ita tio n om itt ed ); see also B et h e s da Lu thera n H o m es & Servi ces, In c. v. B o rn , 23 8 F
. 3d 853, 85 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( “[ F ] o rpur po se s o fr es j udi ca ta a c l ai m i s no t ana r g um en t o r a g ro und but the e vents cl ai m ed to gi ve ri se to a r i g h tt o a l e g a lr e me d y ” )
. H e r e , th e f a c t s i n b o t h c l a i ms ar e unqu es ti ona bl y i den ti ca l
. J o hns o n’ s se co nd a r g um en t

— th atthe o r i g i na lc as e was n ot dec i ded o n the m er i ts becau se the acti on s houl d have be en di sm i sse d f orl ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uri sdicti on

— fai ls und er R eed14 N os. 08
- 3810, 09
- 2213 & 10
- 1733 E lsevier
. Thus, the j ud ge c orre ctl y g ra nted Cypress H ill’s m oti on t o dism i ss Johnson II , fi nd i ng the am ended com pla i nt bar re d by res judicat a . For thes e reason s, th e j ud gm en t of th e d ist rict court i s A FFI RMED .

6- 1- 11