Conference Calendar CATHERINE MSTARR v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60826
Conference Calendar
CATHERINE M STARR
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION; PRESIDENT, DAIMLERCHRYSLER
CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:05-CV-2107
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Catherine M. Starr filed a pro se suit in federal court alleging a copyright
infringement. The defendants moved for dismissal of the suit under FED. R. CIV.
P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) asserting, among other things, that the district court was
without jurisdiction because Starr did not have a copyright registration. The
district court granted the motion and dismissed Starr’s complaint for lack of
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60826
2
subject matter jurisdiction. Our review is de novo. Copeland v. Wasserstein,
Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2002).
“[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work
shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in
accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2005). Registration is a
jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an infringement action. Creations Unlimited,
Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 1997). This court does not require
that a certificate from the Copyright Office be obtained before bringing suit, but
it does require the plaintiff to have filed an application for registration with the
Copyright Office prior to the infringement action. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932
F.2d 103, 1108 (5th Cir. 1991). Starr’s complaint failed to allege that she had
even applied for copyright registration. The district court did not err in
dismissing Starr’s complaint.
Starr’s motion for a default judgment on appeal is DENIED. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --