Court Grants Motion to Dismiss in Favor of University Claiming Sovereign Immunity
This is an update for a case first reported on this blog in February 2017.
In March 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part Defendant Texas A&M’s motion to dismiss. The court order is the latest in the ongoing litigation that began in January 2017, when Plaintiff Michael Bynum filed a copyright infringement suit against Texas A&M, its Athletic Department, and others, including the University’s 12th Man Foundation.
In its motion to dismiss, Texas A&M contended that the Athletic Department is a division of the university and therefore "is not a separate legal entity, capable of being sued." In response to the University's motion, Bynum argued that the A&M Athletic Department's "operations are separate and distinct from the University and its educational mission." Bynum further argued that (1) the Athletic Department's corporate structure, finances, and business operations are separate from the University, and; (2) the Athletic Department cannot be viewed as an arm of the State. The court characterized Bynum's arguments as "intriguing," but nevertheless concluded that based on the evidence, "the fact is that the Athletic Department is not separate. It is a part of the University, not a separate entity. As such, the A&M Athletic Department simply lacks capacity to be sued."
The court noted that ordinarily, when an incorrect party is named in a suit, the correct party can be substituted. However, the university has Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be substituted in lieu of the A&M Athletic Department as a defendant. The court dismissed the claims of copyright infringement against Texas A&M, the Athletic Department, the 12th Man Foundation, Alan Cannon (the Associate Athletic Director of Media Relations for the A&M Athletic Department), and Lane Stephenson (former Director of News and Information Services at Texas A&M).
The court denied the motion to dismiss as it related to claims against Brad Marquardt (Associate Director of Media Relations for the A&M Athletic Department). The court denied Marquardt's qualified immunity claim, found that the Plaintiffs had pleaded facts that indicated both direct and contributory infringement (but noted that ultimately Marquardt could not be held liable for both) and found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded a claim against Marquardt for DMCA violations.
On a separate but related note, as was previously reported on our blog, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will determine whether a state can be sued for damages for copyright infringement, or whether Eleventh Amendment immunity shields from liability.