Cameo Clips

Southern District Judge Algenon L. Marbley noted: “The circumstances surrounding Cooper & Elliot's filing of the instant complaint strongly suggest that the filing was preemptive. Specifically, the sequence and timing of events indicate that Cooper & Elliot was well aware of an impending substantive action against it by the Estate and filed this anticipatory suit in the more convenient forum.” The district judge added that “a presumption already exists that the Court should dismiss this action because it is one for declaratory judgment and the second lawsuit is substantive. ' Given the circumstances surrounding the filing of the present matter, and the presumption, the Court declines to apply the first-to-file rule in favor of Cooper & Elliot and will instead defer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.”

Dispute over Song Contest Must Go to Arbitration

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a songwriter's suit over a song contest, ruling that the dispute should instead go to arbitration. Cortes v. Sony Corp. of America, 14-1578.

Luis Adrian Cortes entered the SuperSong contest, in which the top finalist's song would be performed by Ricky Martin. Cortes placed in the top 20 finalists but not the top slot. He later filed suit alleging that the Martin recording “Vida” infringed on the song Cortes had submitted for SuperSong . The documents Cortes signed to participate in the song contest stated: “All actions or proceedings arising in connection with, touching upon or relating to these Official Rules, the breach thereof and/or the scope of the provisions of this Section 6 shall be submitted to JAMS (alternative dispute resolution provider) ('JAMS') for final and binding arbitration under its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures '”

District of Puerto Rico federal Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi found: “Plaintiff's contention that he did not admit to having read the Contest Rules, as well as his claim that he did not receive the Contest Rules in his subsequent e-mail conversation with Defendants and/or their representatives, does not meet any of the elements necessary to find an agreement to arbitrate invalid. Plaintiff received, signed, notarized, and returned the Affidavit which stated that Plaintiff had complied with the Official Rules of the Contest, a copy of which was attached to the affidavit. Though Plaintiff argued the Contest Rules were not attached, a valid agreement to arbitrate is presumed even when the signed document 'incorporate[s] by reference' an arbitration provision 'that may be found' in another document, 'irrespective of whether [the party] received a copy of the document' containing the clause.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. Stan's new book, Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England), will be published in September 2015. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

Law Firm's Suit Against Popovich Estate Is Dismissed

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed a law firm's declaratory action in a legal representation dispute between the firm and the estate of the late record label executive Stephen Popovich, founder of Cleveland International Records. Cooper & Elliot (C & E) v. The Estate of Popovich, 14-cv-505.

C & E represented the Popovich estate in a royalty dispute with Sony Music Entertainment. The firm has claimed it was entitled to a 33.3% contingency fee from the total proceeds of a 2012 settlement with Sony, including from future royalties. The estate claims, however, that C & E are entitled to the contingency percentage only for the past unpaid royalties Sony owed. In 2014, two days after a Tennessee probate court, which oversees the estate, authorized the estate to file a malpractice suit against C & E, the firm sued the estate in the Southern District of Ohio for declaratory relief. Two weeks later, the estate filed a “substantive” lawsuit against the firm in the Northern District of Ohio.

Southern District Judge Algenon L. Marbley noted: “The circumstances surrounding Cooper & Elliot's filing of the instant complaint strongly suggest that the filing was preemptive. Specifically, the sequence and timing of events indicate that Cooper & Elliot was well aware of an impending substantive action against it by the Estate and filed this anticipatory suit in the more convenient forum.” The district judge added that “a presumption already exists that the Court should dismiss this action because it is one for declaratory judgment and the second lawsuit is substantive. ' Given the circumstances surrounding the filing of the present matter, and the presumption, the Court declines to apply the first-to-file rule in favor of Cooper & Elliot and will instead defer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.”

Dispute over Song Contest Must Go to Arbitration

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a songwriter's suit over a song contest, ruling that the dispute should instead go to arbitration. Cortes v. Sony Corp. of America, 14-1578.

Luis Adrian Cortes entered the SuperSong contest, in which the top finalist's song would be performed by Ricky Martin. Cortes placed in the top 20 finalists but not the top slot. He later filed suit alleging that the Martin recording “Vida” infringed on the song Cortes had submitted for SuperSong . The documents Cortes signed to participate in the song contest stated: “All actions or proceedings arising in connection with, touching upon or relating to these Official Rules, the breach thereof and/or the scope of the provisions of this Section 6 shall be submitted to JAMS (alternative dispute resolution provider) ('JAMS') for final and binding arbitration under its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures '”

District of Puerto Rico federal Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi found: “Plaintiff's contention that he did not admit to having read the Contest Rules, as well as his claim that he did not receive the Contest Rules in his subsequent e-mail conversation with Defendants and/or their representatives, does not meet any of the elements necessary to find an agreement to arbitrate invalid. Plaintiff received, signed, notarized, and returned the Affidavit which stated that Plaintiff had complied with the Official Rules of the Contest, a copy of which was attached to the affidavit. Though Plaintiff argued the Contest Rules were not attached, a valid agreement to arbitrate is presumed even when the signed document 'incorporate[s] by reference' an arbitration provision 'that may be found' in another document, 'irrespective of whether [the party] received a copy of the document' containing the clause.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. Stan's new book, Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England), will be published in September 2015. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.