## Facts

- The United Arab Emirates (UAE) conducted an architectural competition for a new embassy/chancery in Washington, D.C.
- Elena Sturdza, an architect licensed in Maryland and Texas but not in the District of Columbia, submitted a design and was informed she won the competition.
- Sturdza and the UAE engaged in extended negotiations and exchanged draft agreements for about two years, but never executed a final written contract.
- The UAE ended negotiations with Sturdza and retained Angelos Demetriou and his firm to design the embassy.
- Sturdza alleged Demetriou’s design was substantially similar to her competition entry and that the UAE and Demetriou improperly used her work.
- In district court, Sturdza asserted: (1) copyright infringement; (2) breach of contract (and related restitution theories) against the UAE; (3) a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim alleging sex discrimination; and (4) state-law tort claims against Demetriou, including fraud conspiracy, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the copyright infringement claim based on lack of substantial similarity between the two embassy designs.
2. Whether District of Columbia licensing law bars an architect not licensed in D.C. from recovering in contract or quantum meruit for architectural services connected to a D.C. project.
3. Whether the state-law tort claims were preempted by Copyright Act § 301 as equivalent to a copyright claim.
4. Whether a foreign sovereign is a “person” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment for defendants on the copyright claim and remanded, holding a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity.
- Certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the question whether D.C. licensing law bars contract or quantum meruit recovery by an architect unlicensed in D.C. but licensed elsewhere.
- Reversed dismissal of the state-law tort claims, holding they were not preempted by Copyright Act § 301.
- Affirmed dismissal of the § 1985 claim, holding a foreign government is not a “person” under § 1985.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper in a copyright case where the record permits a reasonable jury to find substantial similarity, even if dissimilarities also exist.
- Copyright Act § 301 preempts state-law claims only when the work falls within copyright subject matter and the state claim asserts rights equivalent to those protected by federal copyright law.
- Under the “extra element” analysis, state tort claims are not preempted when they require additional elements (such as fraud, interference with contractual relations, or outrageous conduct causing severe distress) that make the claims qualitatively different from infringement.
- Foreign sovereigns are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit revived Sturdza’s copyright and related tort claims for further proceedings, declined to definitively resolve a contested question of local licensing law by certifying it to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and upheld dismissal of the civil-rights conspiracy count because § 1985 does not reach foreign governments.


Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2002)