Case Name: Bobbie June GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent; Peter Harvey GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1995-10-16
Citations: 320 S.C. 127
Docket Number: 24329
Parties: Bobbie June GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent. Peter Harvey GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: Finney, C.J., and Toal and Waller, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 320
Pages: 127–131

Head Matter:
24329
Bobbie June GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent. Peter Harvey GRIGGS, Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, Respondent.
(463 S.E. (2d) 608)
Supreme Court
John P. Bowler, of John P. Bowler & Associates, P.A., North Charleston, for appellant.
John M. Mahon, Jr., Columbia Correspondent.
Heard May 31, 1995.
Decided Oct. 16, 1995;
Reh. Den. Nov. 16, 1995.

Opinion:
Moore, Justice:
The circuit court granted respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground the federal Copyright Act (Act) preempts appellants' complaints. We affirm.
FACTS
In 1989, appellant Bobbie June Griggs submitted a recipe in the Third Annual Rice Cook-Off sponsored by respondent South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G). Mrs. Griggs was not chosen as a finalist. Her recipe, however, was published with all the recipes entered in the contest in a cookbook commemorating the event. Mrs. Griggs demanded her recipe be removed from the cookbook as the publication of the recipe prevented her from entering it in future contests. Thereafter, however, some copies of the cookbook containing her recipe were distributed.
In 1992, Mrs. Griggs brought this action alleging the recipe was her sole creation and SCE&G's printing it without her authorization caused her injury. Mrs. Griggs brought several causes of action including conversion, negligence, quasi-contract, and outrage. Mr. Griggs brought an action for loss of consortium. SCE&G made a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Mr. and Mrs. Griggs' actions were actually actions under the Act which preempts any state claims.
ISSUES
1) Did the circuit court err in granting SCE&G's motion to dismiss?
2) Did the trial court err in denying the Griggs' motion to amend their complaints?
DISCUSSION
1) Motion to dismiss.
"The [federal] courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases." 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (1982). The Act preempts state rights that cover works which fall within the Act's subject matter and protect rights which are equivalent to the exclusive rights within the scope of the act. 17 U.S.C. § 301(a) (1977).
First, we must address whether a single recipe is within the subject matter of the Act. In Fargo Mercantile Co. v. Brechet & Richter Co., 295 F. 823 (8th Cir. 1924), the court held a recipe is copyrightable. Under Fargo, Mrs. Griggs' recipe falls within the subject matter of the Act. "As long as a work fits within one of the general subject matter categories of sections 102 and 103, the [Act] prevents the States from protecting it even if it fails to achieve Federal statutory copyright. . . ." 17 U.S.C. § 301 Note (1977). Second, we must determine if the rights sought to be protected are equivalent to those within the general scope of the Act.
Mrs. Griggs alleges conversion, negligence, quasi-contract, and outrage. Generally, "there is no preemption of state law conversion, since the rights are not 'equivalent' to copyright. If, however, contrary to the usual view of conversion, it is regarded as encompassing unauthorized reproduction, then the rights created are indeed 'equivalent' to copyright, and the state law is preempted." Nobel v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., 584 A. (2d) 57 (Me. 1990). See generally 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1-14(1)-1-14.5. Mrs. Griggs' conversion claim is based upon SCE&G's publication of her recipe without authorization. Therefore, it is preempted. Likewise, as the claim of quasi-contract is based upon the uncompensated and unauthorized publication of the recipe, it is also preempted.
Mrs. Griggs' negligence and outrage claims are based upon SCE&G's failure to advise Mrs. Griggs the recipe would be published and remove the recipe from the cookbook. Again, these claims stem from SCE&G's unautho rized publication of the recipe. Therefore, they are equivalent to copyright rights and preempted. See Kakizaki v. Riedel, 811 F. Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Thus, we hold the Act preempts the Griggs' actions and the circuit court correctly dismissed the complaints.
2) Amendments of Complaints
The Griggs content the circuit court erred in denying their motion to amend their complaints. We disagree. Because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the circuit court denied the Griggs' motion. Since we hold the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaints because the Act preempts them, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to allow amendment of the complaints. See Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, 297 S.C. 91, 374 S.E. (2d) 907 (Ct. App. 1988). Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is
Affirmed.
Finney, C.J., and Toal and Waller, JJ., concur.
Burnett, A.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part in separate opinion.
17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1977).
The Griggs' failure to obtain copyright protection under the Act does not allow them to evade preemption. 1 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01(B) (1994).
The dissent quotes Maxey v. R.L. Bryan Co., 295 S.C. 334, 368 S.E. (2d) 466 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F. (2d) 823 (2d Cir. 1964), for the test of whether an action arises under the Act. Judge Sanders in Maxey stated the test from T.B. Harms was "a rather convoluted rule" and held "it would appear that the question boils down to whether the aspect of the case which involves the Copyright Act is 'a big deal.' If it is, we are required to 'make a federal case out of it.' " 295 S.C. at 337, 338, 368 S.E. (2d) 466 (footnotes omitted). Here, the publication of the recipe is "a big deal" in Mrs. Griggs' actions for negligence and outrage and, therefore, they are preempted.