Bit Parts

Attorney Fees in Litigation over Three Production Agreements Reduced Proportionately

A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reduced an attorney fees award by just 15%, in litigation over three related production agreements, by focusing on counsels' time spent on the most valuable contract. 4Kids Entertainment Inc. v. Upper Deck Co., 10 Civ. 3386. 4Kids and Upper Deck entered into agreements for the production of an animated TV series called Huntik, and for production of commercials for the show and for a Dinosaur King card game. 4Kids later sued, alleging Upper Deck had failed to properly make payments due under the deals, including $175,000 still owed as part of an advance under the series production contract. (The value of the other two agreements was $2,432 for the TV-show commercials deal and $5,879 for the card game commercials.) District Judge Colleen McMahon granted summary judgment to 4Kids for breach of contract claims under the first and third agreements, but dismissed 4Kids' claims under the TV show commercials contract. (Upper Deck then paid 4Kids under the card game agreement.) Determining 4Kids' attorney fees under contractual indemnification between the parties, Gabriel W. Gorenstein explained: “First, the Huntik Term Sheet [i.e., TV production contract] claim was by far the one of the greatest value. ' Second, there was a 'substantial overlap' in the claims. While certain legal theories were disallowed on the summary judgment motions, courts recognize that hours spent on unsuccessful claims may be awarded if the claims are 'inextricably intertwined' and 'involve a common core of facts.' ' Given the interconnectivity between the claims, the Court concludes that an across-the-board reduction of 15% in total hours for each [4Kids litigation] attorney is appropriate to arrive at a figure for the fees attributable to the Huntik Term Sheet claim by itself.”

Judicial Arbitrator Finds Material Breach by Jimi Hendrix Estate in Documentary Production

A judicial arbitrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington ruled that the Jimi Hendrix estate materially breached a 1990s settlement agreement with record producer Alan Douglas regarding the production of a Hendrix documentary with a first-person narrative. Hendrix v. Branton, C93-537. A prior Douglas-produced documentary Room Full of Mirrors featured a first-person Jimi Hendrix narrator. The Douglas/Hendrix estate settlement restricted the estate from producing a “video or film which is similar in form or substance to” Room Full of Mirrors. Douglas sought arbitration after Experience Hendrix produced the first-person-narrative documentary, Voodoo Child. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, as arbitrator, noted that Experience Hendrix “asks the Court to interpret the word 'similar' to mean 'substantially similar”” But District Judge Martinez decided: “[T]here is no indication elsewhere in the contract that the parties intended to import the highly technical copyright term of art, 'substantially similar,' when it employed the term 'similar' in the 1997 Agreement. Presumably, if the parties intended to use this particular definition of the word 'similar,' they could have said so.”

William Morris Gets Out of Missouri Santa Paws Suit

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri decided that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the California-based William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (WME) talent agency, in a copyright infringement suit filed by three Missouri-based individuals over Disney videos. Harter v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 4:11CV2207. The plaintiffs had hired William Morris to market their Santa Paws story and later sued over Disney's Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws and The Search for Santa Paws. Granting William Morris's motion to dismiss (the case continued against Disney), District Judge Catherine D. Perry found: “The only specific communication contained in the complaint, the 1996 letter [from William Morris to one of the plaintiffs], was sent more than [13] years before the alleged infringement occurred. It related only to the actions that WME was taking on behalf of plaintiffs in attempting to market their story to potential filmmakers, pursuant to the parties' contract. The complaint does not explain any relationship between these actions and the alleged infringement other than conclusory allegations that WME breached a fiduciary duty and was negligent.” District Judge Perry added that, though the plaintiffs “state in their response that they are willing to provide additional facts to the court if necessary for a finding of personal jurisdiction, their obligation to show personal jurisdiction arose when they filed the complaint and when they were faced with WME's motion” to dismiss.

Attorney Fees in Litigation over Three Production Agreements Reduced Proportionately

A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reduced an attorney fees award by just 15%, in litigation over three related production agreements, by focusing on counsels' time spent on the most valuable contract. 4Kids Entertainment Inc. v. Upper Deck Co., 10 Civ. 3386. 4Kids and Upper Deck entered into agreements for the production of an animated TV series called Huntik, and for production of commercials for the show and for a Dinosaur King card game. 4Kids later sued, alleging Upper Deck had failed to properly make payments due under the deals, including $175,000 still owed as part of an advance under the series production contract. (The value of the other two agreements was $2,432 for the TV-show commercials deal and $5,879 for the card game commercials.) District Judge Colleen McMahon granted summary judgment to 4Kids for breach of contract claims under the first and third agreements, but dismissed 4Kids' claims under the TV show commercials contract. (Upper Deck then paid 4Kids under the card game agreement.) Determining 4Kids' attorney fees under contractual indemnification between the parties, Gabriel W. Gorenstein explained: “First, the Huntik Term Sheet [i.e., TV production contract] claim was by far the one of the greatest value. ' Second, there was a 'substantial overlap' in the claims. While certain legal theories were disallowed on the summary judgment motions, courts recognize that hours spent on unsuccessful claims may be awarded if the claims are 'inextricably intertwined' and 'involve a common core of facts.' ' Given the interconnectivity between the claims, the Court concludes that an across-the-board reduction of 15% in total hours for each [4Kids litigation] attorney is appropriate to arrive at a figure for the fees attributable to the Huntik Term Sheet claim by itself.”

Judicial Arbitrator Finds Material Breach by Jimi Hendrix Estate in Documentary Production

A judicial arbitrator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington ruled that the Jimi Hendrix estate materially breached a 1990s settlement agreement with record producer Alan Douglas regarding the production of a Hendrix documentary with a first-person narrative. Hendrix v. Branton, C93-537. A prior Douglas-produced documentary Room Full of Mirrors featured a first-person Jimi Hendrix narrator. The Douglas/Hendrix estate settlement restricted the estate from producing a “video or film which is similar in form or substance to” Room Full of Mirrors. Douglas sought arbitration after Experience Hendrix produced the first-person-narrative documentary, Voodoo Child. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, as arbitrator, noted that Experience Hendrix “asks the Court to interpret the word 'similar' to mean 'substantially similar”” But District Judge Martinez decided: “[T]here is no indication elsewhere in the contract that the parties intended to import the highly technical copyright term of art, 'substantially similar,' when it employed the term 'similar' in the 1997 Agreement. Presumably, if the parties intended to use this particular definition of the word 'similar,' they could have said so.”

William Morris Gets Out of Missouri Santa Paws Suit

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri decided that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the California-based William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (WME) talent agency, in a copyright infringement suit filed by three Missouri-based individuals over Disney videos. Harter v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 4:11CV2207. The plaintiffs had hired William Morris to market their Santa Paws story and later sued over Disney's Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws and The Search for Santa Paws. Granting William Morris's motion to dismiss (the case continued against Disney), District Judge Catherine D. Perry found: “The only specific communication contained in the complaint, the 1996 letter [from William Morris to one of the plaintiffs], was sent more than [13] years before the alleged infringement occurred. It related only to the actions that WME was taking on behalf of plaintiffs in attempting to market their story to potential filmmakers, pursuant to the parties' contract. The complaint does not explain any relationship between these actions and the alleged infringement other than conclusory allegations that WME breached a fiduciary duty and was negligent.” District Judge Perry added that, though the plaintiffs “state in their response that they are willing to provide additional facts to the court if necessary for a finding of personal jurisdiction, their obligation to show personal jurisdiction arose when they filed the complaint and when they were faced with WME's motion” to dismiss.