Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hurn v. Oursler

Supreme Court of the United States · 1933 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFederal jurisdictionCopyrightUnfair competitionsubstantial federal questionsame cause of actionseparate and distinct causes of actionpendent jurisdiction

Facts

Petitioners alleged that respondents' play, "The Spider," infringed petitioners' copyrighted play, "The Evil Hour," and also constituted unfair business practices and unfair competition. The bill also alleged that a revised, uncopyrighted version of petitioners' play had been submitted to respondents and that respondents appropriated the idea of a spiritualistic seance and certain incidental elements. The parties were citizens of the same state, so federal jurisdiction depended on the copyright claim. The trial court found that "The Spider" did not infringe the copyrighted play in any way and then treated the unfair competition allegations as outside federal jurisdiction.

Issue

When a complaint includes a substantial federal copyright claim and a non-federal unfair competition claim, may the federal court decide the non-federal claim on the merits if it rests on the same facts and supports the same cause of action? Conversely, may the court hear a non-federal claim concerning an uncopyrighted version of the work when that claim is independent of the copyright claim?

Rule

If a substantial federal question is pleaded and the non-federal ground is not a separate and distinct cause of action but merely another ground supporting the same cause of action, the federal court may retain and decide the entire case on the merits even if the federal ground fails. But a federal court may not assume jurisdiction over a separate and distinct non-federal cause of action merely because it is joined in the same complaint with a federal cause of action. For this jurisdictional inquiry, the distinction is between different grounds supporting one cause of action and separate causes of action asserting violations of distinct rights.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Illinois, Lena Ortiz sues Devon Pike and North Harbor Stageworks, all citizens of Illinois, alleging that their new musical copies protected portions of her federally copyrighted script. In the same complaint, she also pleads state-law unfair competition, asserting that the same copying and public performance of the same script misappropriated her work and injured the same interest.

If the copyright claim is substantial when pleaded but the judge later finds no infringement, what is the best jurisdictional result as to the unfair competition theory?

Explanation. When a substantial federal question is pleaded, the federal court acquires jurisdiction over that cause. If the non-federal theory is not a separate and distinct cause of action but merely another ground supporting the same cause of action, the court may retain and dispose of it on the merits even after the federal ground fails. Here both theories rest on the same alleged copying of the same copyrighted work and seek relief for a single wrong to the same right.