IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—11th Cir.: Collateral estoppel barred poet’s infringement claims over Michael Jackson song ‘You Are Not Alone‘, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Dismissal in poet’s first action based on lack of personal jurisdiction had preclusive effect on her second action in the same district court against identical defendants.

In a copyright infringement action by an author alleging that the Michael Jackson song “You Are Not Alone” copied elements of her poems, claims against a music producer and music company were collaterally estopped by a determination of lack of personal jurisdiction in a prior case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held in an unpublished opinion. However, the dismissal of claims against four other music companies for failure to effectuate timely service of process was premature. Thus, the district court’s dismissal of claims against two defendants as barred by collateral estoppel was affirmed, and the dismissal against four defendants for failure to effectuate service of process was vacated and remanded (Moon v. Williams, No. 25-10365 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026)).

Author and poet Juliette Moon created the book “JULIE’S BEST: POETRY WITH A PROFOUND TOUCH,” which included her poems “[Woman], You’re Not Alone,” “Without You Another Day,” “She’s Gentle and Yet Neglected,” “Nature,” and “It’s Definitely Real.” In June 2024, Moon filed a complaint against music producer Wayne Williams, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, MJJ Productions, R. Kelly Publishing, and Jive/Zomba Group, alleging that the defendants infringed her copyright in her unpublished poems by helping to create and profit from the song “You Are Not Alone” by singer Michael Jackson and that the song was written copying the unique elements of her poems. She alleged that the defendants infringed her copyright or benefited from the infringement and intentionally attributed the writing of the song to Robert Kelly in order to deflect from the lyrics willfully infringing on her copyrighted poems.

In 2023, Moon filed her first copyright infringement suit against Williams and Sony in the same district court and made the same allegations as in the present case. The district court dismissed the first action against Williams and Sony without prejudice based on lack of personal jurisdiction and Moon did not appeal the dismissal order. In the present case, the district court dismissed Moon’s copyright claims against Williams and Sony as collaterally estopped by the prior determination of lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against Sony/ATV, MJJ Productions, R. Kelly Publishing, and Jive/Zomba for failure to effectuate service of process after Moon failed to provide good cause for an extension of time. Before the court was Moon’s appeal of the dismissal.

Collateral estoppel. The court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Moon’s copyright infringement claims against Williams and Sony as collaterally estopped. The four elements for collateral estoppel to apply were established. First, the issue of jurisdiction in both the first action and the present case dealt with whether the same district court in Georgia possessed personal jurisdiction over identical defendants. Second, the parties actually litigated the issue of personal jurisdiction in Moon’s first action as Williams and Sony raised the issue in their pleadings and the district court subsequently determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Third, the determination of the issue in the first action was critical and necessary as the court finding resulted in the dismissal of Williams and Sony. Fourth, Moon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of personal jurisdiction in the first action as she filed multiple pleadings arguing that she had established that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Williams and Sony. Thus, Moon’s claims against Williams and Sony were barred by collateral estoppel, the court stated.

Service of process. The district court decision to dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to timely effect service was premature, the court determined. There was a two-step inquiry when a district court considers whether to dismiss a case without prejudice for failing to effectuate timely service or direct that service be effectuated within a specified time. The district court did not abuse its discretion when determining that Moon failed to demonstrate good cause for her failure to timely effectuate service. However, the district court did not clearly consider whether a permissive extension of time was warranted under the facts of the case. In the dismissal order of the four remaining defendants, the district court solely addressed the first step regarding good cause. Consequently, the dismissal for failure to timely effectuate service of process must be vacated and the case remanded for the district court to consider whether the facts of the case justify a permissive extension of the service period, the court concluded.

The Case is No. 25-10365.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Juliette Moon, pro se. Ryan Lance Isenberg (Isenberg & Hewitt, PC) for Wayne T. Williams.

Cases: Copyright AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews