Bit Parts

Band-Name Disputes/Claim Preclusion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a breach-of-fiduciary-duty suit in California state court by Al Jardine ' an original Beach Boys member and a director of the band's Brother Records Inc. (BRI) ' against BRI can proceed despite a related federal court ruling against Jardine over use of “The Beach Boys” trademark. Brother Records Inc. v. Jardine, 04-55096. The California Court of Appeal had decided that the federal ruling didn't present a res-judicata bar to Jardine's state suit. The federal appeals court noted: “Jardine's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not threaten the district court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, which prohibits Jardine from using the Beach Boys trademark. Even if there was some question about the possibility of interference with the injunction, 'any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to … finally determine the controversy.'”

Contractual Wrong-doing/Statute of Limitations

The New York Appellate Division granted dismissal of a suit alleging that hip-hop mogul Sean Combs “menaced plaintiff with a baseball bat, while defendant [Kenneth] Meiselas, Combs's attorney, demanded that plaintiff sign an instrument forfeiting all interest in defendant Bad Boy Entertainment Inc.” Plaintiff Kirk Burrowes also claimed tortuous interference with his management agreement with artist Mary J. Blige. The appellate court noted that the tortious interference claim lacked sufficient facts and that the other causes of action were time-barred. The appellate court stated: “To the extent plaintiff alleges defendants made certain promises as late as 2001 that could toll the applicable limitations period, they were not in writing signed by defendants, as required by [N.Y.] General Obligations Law Sec. 17-101.” Burrowes v. Combs, 6654-6655.

Copyrights/Grant Terminations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a 1983 renegotiation by the granddaughter of “Winnie-the-Pooh” children's-book-author Alan Alexander Milne of a pre-1978 character-rights agreement with The Walt Disney Co. and a rights dealer barred the granddaughter from terminating the grant. (The Copyright Act of 1976 allows for termination of rights grants made before Jan. 1, 1978.) Milne v. Stephen Slesinger Inc., 430 F.3d 1036 (2005).

Misappropriation/Evidence Fabrication

A Manhattan federal district court dismissed on grounds of evidence fabrication a suit alleging misappropriation of the plaintiffs' treatment by Michael Chabon's 2002 novel “Summerland.” Shangold v. The Walt Disney Co., 03 Civ. 9522 (WHP). According to the district court: “The linchpin of Plaintiffs' misappropriation theory is the baseball theme. Because Plaintiffs contend that [their treatment revision] was the earliest introduction of a baseball storyline, the time of its delivery to Disney is critical to their claims. There is no evidence, apart from Plaintiffs' deposition testimony and their revised timeline, that they sent [the treatment revision] to Disney in 1995. To the contrary, there is voluminous, independent and irrefutable evidence that Plaintiffs did not create [the treatment revision] at that time. … Because [Judith] Shangold and [Ronnie] Niederman have tainted evidence at the heart of their dispute with Defendants and then sought to conceal it, they have forfeited their right to litigate this case and no sanction short of dismissal will suffice to deter future misconduct.”

A Manhattan federal district court ruled that a plaintiff who claimed that his screenplay “satires ridiculing dysfunctional families” were stolen from him in a burglary and used as the basis for the films “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers” failed to state a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1964. Chivalry Film Productions v. NBC Universal Inc., 05 Civ. 5627 (GEL). The court found the plaintiff hadn't alleged a “pattern” of racketeering. “The only viable alleged predicate acts, the interstate transportation of [plaintiff's] stolen manuscript, must have taken place, if at all, within a limited period between the theft in August 1998 and the release of the first completed film in 2000,” the court noted. “A scheme of such limited purpose, accomplished in such a limited period, cannot constitute a RICO pattern.”

TV-Show Rights/Personal Jurisdiction

A Manhattan federal district court decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a Russian TV-production company in a dispute about the defendant's alleged production and licensing activities of a sequel to the popular Russian police series “Menty.” Overseas Media Inc. v. Skvortsov, 04 Civ. 5133 (RJH). The district court noted: “Following more than a year of jurisdictional discovery, plaintiffs have not assembled any facts that would support anything more than the theoretical possibility of injury in New York based on the potential broadcast or distribution of the show in Russia ' foreign activities that plaintiffs no longer request this Court to enjoin. They have pointed to no grounds on which to find any anticipated economic injury in New York stemming from the commission of the acts which would provide the basis for jurisdiction here.

BOOK RELEASE

“Truth and Lives on Film ' The Legal Problems of Depicting Real Person and Events in a Fictional Medium” by John T. Aquino. Published by McFarland & Co. For further information: www.mcfarlandpub.com or 800-253-2187.

Band-Name Disputes/Claim Preclusion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a breach-of-fiduciary-duty suit in California state court by Al Jardine ' an original Beach Boys member and a director of the band's Brother Records Inc. (BRI) ' against BRI can proceed despite a related federal court ruling against Jardine over use of “The Beach Boys” trademark. Brother Records Inc. v. Jardine, 04-55096. The California Court of Appeal had decided that the federal ruling didn't present a res-judicata bar to Jardine's state suit. The federal appeals court noted: “Jardine's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not threaten the district court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, which prohibits Jardine from using the Beach Boys trademark. Even if there was some question about the possibility of interference with the injunction, 'any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to … finally determine the controversy.'”

Contractual Wrong-doing/Statute of Limitations

The New York Appellate Division granted dismissal of a suit alleging that hip-hop mogul Sean Combs “menaced plaintiff with a baseball bat, while defendant [Kenneth] Meiselas, Combs's attorney, demanded that plaintiff sign an instrument forfeiting all interest in defendant Bad Boy Entertainment Inc.” Plaintiff Kirk Burrowes also claimed tortuous interference with his management agreement with artist Mary J. Blige. The appellate court noted that the tortious interference claim lacked sufficient facts and that the other causes of action were time-barred. The appellate court stated: “To the extent plaintiff alleges defendants made certain promises as late as 2001 that could toll the applicable limitations period, they were not in writing signed by defendants, as required by [N.Y.] General Obligations Law Sec. 17-101.” Burrowes v. Combs, 6654-6655.

Copyrights/Grant Terminations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a 1983 renegotiation by the granddaughter of “Winnie-the-Pooh” children's-book-author Alan Alexander Milne of a pre-1978 character-rights agreement with The Walt Disney Co. and a rights dealer barred the granddaughter from terminating the grant. (The Copyright Act of 1976 allows for termination of rights grants made before Jan. 1, 1978.) Milne v. Stephen Slesinger Inc. , 430 F.3d 1036 (2005).

Misappropriation/Evidence Fabrication

A Manhattan federal district court dismissed on grounds of evidence fabrication a suit alleging misappropriation of the plaintiffs' treatment by Michael Chabon's 2002 novel “Summerland.” Shangold v. The Walt Disney Co., 03 Civ. 9522 (WHP). According to the district court: “The linchpin of Plaintiffs' misappropriation theory is the baseball theme. Because Plaintiffs contend that [their treatment revision] was the earliest introduction of a baseball storyline, the time of its delivery to Disney is critical to their claims. There is no evidence, apart from Plaintiffs' deposition testimony and their revised timeline, that they sent [the treatment revision] to Disney in 1995. To the contrary, there is voluminous, independent and irrefutable evidence that Plaintiffs did not create [the treatment revision] at that time. … Because [Judith] Shangold and [Ronnie] Niederman have tainted evidence at the heart of their dispute with Defendants and then sought to conceal it, they have forfeited their right to litigate this case and no sanction short of dismissal will suffice to deter future misconduct.”

A Manhattan federal district court ruled that a plaintiff who claimed that his screenplay “satires ridiculing dysfunctional families” were stolen from him in a burglary and used as the basis for the films “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers” failed to state a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1964. Chivalry Film Productions v. NBC Universal Inc., 05 Civ. 5627 (GEL). The court found the plaintiff hadn't alleged a “pattern” of racketeering. “The only viable alleged predicate acts, the interstate transportation of [plaintiff's] stolen manuscript, must have taken place, if at all, within a limited period between the theft in August 1998 and the release of the first completed film in 2000,” the court noted. “A scheme of such limited purpose, accomplished in such a limited period, cannot constitute a RICO pattern.”

TV-Show Rights/Personal Jurisdiction

A Manhattan federal district court decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a Russian TV-production company in a dispute about the defendant's alleged production and licensing activities of a sequel to the popular Russian police series “Menty.” Overseas Media Inc. v. Skvortsov, 04 Civ. 5133 (RJH). The district court noted: “Following more than a year of jurisdictional discovery, plaintiffs have not assembled any facts that would support anything more than the theoretical possibility of injury in New York based on the potential broadcast or distribution of the show in Russia ' foreign activities that plaintiffs no longer request this Court to enjoin. They have pointed to no grounds on which to find any anticipated economic injury in New York stemming from the commission of the acts which would provide the basis for jurisdiction here.

BOOK RELEASE

“Truth and Lives on Film ' The Legal Problems of Depicting Real Person and Events in a Fictional Medium” by John T. Aquino. Published by McFarland & Co. For further information: www.mcfarlandpub.com or 800-253-2187.