Bit Parts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a dismissal for failure to prosecute a suit over rights to David Bowie recordings. Tango Music LLC v. DeadQuick Music Inc., 02-4396. The district court dismissed the suit after Tango Music delayed in serving or failed to serve defendants, and failed to respond to telephone messages from defense counsel and the court. The appeals court determined that severe depression by Tango Music's counsel wasn't sufficient excuse for failing to prosecute. The appeals court stated that Tango Music “has to take responsibility for the actions of its agents, including the lawyers whom it hires.”

Beatles Recordings Ruling

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reversed and remanded a default judgment in a suit over an oral agreement for purported rights to distribute in Japan and North America “Live at Star Platz Club Hamburg” recordings by the Beatles. Blue Dolphin Entertainment Co. Ltd. v. Walters, B160041. In its unpublished opinion, the court of appeal ruled, among other things, that the oral agreement for copyright use of the recordings was barred by the statute of frauds. The court also held that the statute of frauds barred fraud and conversion claims against the defendants, who didn't own really rights to the Beatles recordings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a ruling in favor of Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne and Sony Music Entertainment in a suit alleging failure to properly credit and pay royalties to two musicians who recorded with Ozzy. Daisley v. Osbourne, 02-56624. The appeals court noted in its unpublished opinion that Ozzy's English accountant had informed plaintiffs Robert Daisley and Lee Kerslake in 1991 that they weren't entitled to royalties. Thus, the 1998 royalties claim was time barred under Calif. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 337. The appeals court added that there was no substantial evidence that the plaintiffs were improperly denied album credits.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Bridgeport Music in response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that the issuance of mechanical licenses and a synchronization license by a Texas music publisher didn't amount to purposeful availment in Tennessee. Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Still N The Water Publishing, 03-215. This lets stand the appeals court's conclusion that a Tennessee federal district court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the publisher in a copyright infringement suit.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, affirmed a lower court ruling that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of an oral multi-year partnership agreement to promote concerts worldwide. Resendez v. Pace Concerts Inc., 07-02-0168-CV. As a result, plaintiff Paul Resendez couldn't proceed with a claim of fraud in the inducement to recover damages measured by the benefit of the bargain.

The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, decided in an unpublished opinion that California was an inconvenient forum for a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment action filed by an extra on the film “Titanic.” Cardoza v. Studios De LaPlaya, D040039. After working on the film in Mexico, Jack Cardoza began a business in San Diego County, CA, selling discarded “Titanic” props. He was later arrested but absolved in Mexico of receiving stolen property. Cardoza claimed in his malicious prosecution and false imprisonment suit in San Diego Superior Court that the studios hired an individual to lure him back to Mexico for arrest. The court of appeal concluded that Cardoza's suit against the studio and its lawyers would be best heard in Mexico because that's where the arrest and prosecution took place, involving Mexican citizens, Mexican authorities and the Mexican criminal justice system.