Ralph W. Baker Jr. sues 58 defendants over his book Shock Exchange, and the court orders him to show cause

The complaint

Baker v. DuVernay, No. 1:26-cv-08385 (S.D.N.Y.), is a 226-page complaint, ECF No. 1, filed by Ralph W. Baker, Jr. of Brooklyn, New York, who is representing himself. The complaint is stamped filed September 19, 2026. The court's order to show cause counts 58 defendants. They include individuals, universities, nonprofit organizations, the United States, Netflix, Inc., Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., ARRAY Filmworks and a company the caption lists as News Corporation. The case was reassigned to Judge Katherine Polk Failla on September 29, 2026.

The book and the accused works

The complaint alleges that Baker owns copyright registration TXu001822615 for Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead, registered August 1, 2012. The Copyright Office public catalog lists TXu001822615 for that title, registered August 1, 2012, with Ralph William Baker, Jr. as author and claimant.

According to the complaint, Ava DuVernay, New York University and Michael Harriot copied portions of Shock Exchange without authorization. It identifies the accused works as the Netflix documentary 13th and the interview "13th: A Conversation With Oprah Winfrey And Ava DuVernay"; two New York University publications, Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice and Ending Mass Incarceration: Ideas From Today's Leaders; and the book Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America. The complaint alleges that the defendants copied Baker's creative selections, ideas and expression of ideas and the structure and pattern of the book, and it sets out side-by-side passages and sections of allegations against each defendant.

Claims and relief

The preliminary statement says the complaint is brought for direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and identity theft, violations of New York common law, unfair competition laws, the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350 and 368-d, and negligence. Its Claims for Relief section pleads two causes of action, each headed "Direct Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)". The first alleges willful direct infringement of Shock Exchange. The second pleads, in the alternative, contributory, inducement and vicarious liability.

The prayer asks for (A) a declaration that the defendants' practices constitute willful copyright infringement; (B) a preliminary and permanent injunction against infringing any copyright Baker owns or exclusively controls, and an order that all unlawful copies be destroyed; (C) statutory damages; (D) alternatively, an accounting of the defendants' profits and judgment for Baker's damages and the defendants' profits attributable to the infringement; (E) costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees, under 17 U.S.C. § 505; (F) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (G) such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The complaint demands a jury trial.

The order to show cause

Judge Failla signed an order to show cause on October 27, 2026, and it was entered on the docket on October 28, 2026, ECF No. 35. The order states that "the Complaint may be defective because of (i) claim and issue preclusion; (ii) failure to state a claim; and (iii) timeliness." It states that the complaint references two related copyright cases Baker previously brought in the same court, No. 22 Civ. 7986 and No. 24 Civ. 8760. It states that in the first, the copyright claims against 25 defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that the Second Circuit affirmed in No. 23-7483, as did the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2109. It states that in the second, the claims against the 49 named defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim. On timeliness, the order quotes the three-year limitations period in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) and states that Baker "should therefore address why the Court should not dismiss some or all of his copyright claims as untimely, taking care to discuss when he discovered each infringing work."

The order directs Baker to show cause in writing, "in a memorandum of law of no more than twenty-five pages," on or before December 15, 2026, "why his claims should not be dismissed in whole or in part for the reasons set forth above." It states that if he "fails to show cause or does not file anything by the deadline," the court may dismiss the action, in whole or in part, sua sponte without further notice.

On the docket

On October 22, 2026, the court denied Baker's letter application concerning the preservation of evidence, ECF No. 18. Summonses have been issued, and Baker has filed proofs of service on a number of defendants. Netflix, Inc. appeared on November 5, 2026, and filed a letter motion for an extension of time to answer the complaint, ECF No. 51. Further summonses were issued on November 9, 2026, ECF Nos. 52 through 55.