N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LAUR A SIEGEL LAR SON, individua lly and a s pe rsona l re pre se ntat ive of the Esta t e of Joa nne Sie ge l, AKA Joa

nne Sie ge l, Plaintiff-c o unte r-de fe n da nt - Appe lla nt,
v. W AR NER B R O S ENTER TAINM ENT, INC ., a c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , a nd DC C OM IC S, a

Ne w York Ge ne ra l Pa rtne rship, De fe nda

nt-c ounte r-c la im ant - Appe lle e . No. 13-56243 D.C . No. 2:04-c v-08400-ODW -R Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

LAUR A SIEGEL LAR SON, individua lly and a s pe rsona l re pre se ntat ive of the Esta t e of Joa nne Sie ge l, AKA Joa

nne Sie ge l, Plaintiff-c o unte r-de fe n da nt - Appe lla

n t, No. 13-56244 D.C . No. 2:04-c v-08776-ODW -R Z 

# FIL ED FEB 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.v.

TIM E W AR

NER , INC ., a

c orporation; W AR NER C OM M U

NIC ATIONS, INC ., a c orporation; W

A R NER B R OS. ENTER TAINM ENT, INC .; WAR NER B R OTHER S TELEVISION PR ODUC TION, INC ., a

c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s,
a nd DC C OM IC S, a

ge ne ra l pa

rtne rship, De fe nda

nt-c ounte r-c la im ant - Appe lle e .
LAUR A SIEGEL LAR SON, individua lly and a s pe rsona l re pre se ntat ive of the Esta t e of Joa nne Sie ge l, AKA Joa

nne Sie ge l, Plaintiff-c o unte r-de fe n da nt - Appe lle e , v. W AR NER B R O S. ENTER TAINM ENT, INC ., a c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, DC C OM IC S, a

Ne w York Ge ne ra l Pa rtne rship, No. 13-56257 D.C . No. 2:04-c v-08400-ODW -R Z

2De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im ant - Appe lla

nt.
LAUR A SIEGEL LAR SON, individua lly and a s pe rsona l re pre se ntat ive of the Esta t e of Joa nne Sie ge l, AKA Joa

nne Sie ge l, Plaintiff-c o unte r-de fe n da nt - Appe lle e , v. TIM E W AR

NER , INC ., a

c orporation; W AR NER C OM M U

NIC ATIONS, INC ., a c orporation; W

A R NER B R OS. ENTER TAINM ENT, INC .; WAR NER B R OTHER S TELEVISION PR ODUC TION, INC ., a

c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts, DC C OM IC S, a

ge ne ra l pa

rtne rship, De fe nda

nt-c ounte r-c la im ant - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56259 D.C . No. 2:04-c v-08776-ODW -R Z

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PR EGER SON, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. 3This is a nothe r a ppe a l in long-running litiga tion ste m m ing from the 1938 transfe r of the Supe rm a

n c opy right from

Je rom e Sie ge l, c o-c re a tor of Supe rm an, to DC C om i c s (“ DC ” ). In 2013, we de c ide d tha t the Oc tobe r 19, 2001, le tte r (“ 2001 le tte r” ) from

the Sie ge ls’ a ttorne y

to the a ttorne y for DC c onstitute d a binding
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt tha

t pote ntia lly

re solve d a ll que s tions in the suit. Larson v
. W arne r Bros. Entm’t, Inc
. , 504 F. App’ x 586 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ Larson I ” ). On
re m and, the distric t c ourt he ld tha t the 2001 le tte r transfe rre d to DC a ll of the
c opy rights liste d in the a gre e m e nt. La ura La rson, Sie ge l’ s suc c e s sor-in-inte re st,
a ppe a ls. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt. Larson c onte n d s tha

t the 2001 le tte r did not c onstitute a pre se nt a s signm e nt of rights a

nd wa s c onditione d on a

future signing of a form a l c ontra c tua l
a gre e m e nt. W e he l d in Larson I , howe ve r, tha

t the le tte r fina liz e d the m a te ria l te rm s of the c ontra c t to whic h the pa rtie s ha d a g re e d. 504 F. App’ x at 587–88. The distric t c ourt did not err in ruling tha t the 2001 le tte r c onstitute d a pre se nt
a ssignm e nt of rights. Larson a rgue s tha t e ve n if the 2001 le tte r wa s a n a gre e m e nt tra

nsfe rring rights to Supe rm an, it c ould not ha v e tra nsfe rre d the c opy

rights to Supe rboy

and
e arly Supe rm an prom otions (the“ Ads” ) be c a use whe n the le tte r wa s writte n, the Sie g e l s ha d not y e t te rm inat e d DC ’ s rights to Superboy and the Ads. La rson re lie s 4for this a

rgum e nt on § 304(c )(6)(D) of the C opy right Ac t , whic h provide s tha t “ [a ] furthe r grant, or a gre e m e nt to m a ke a furthe r gra

nt, of a ny right c ove re d by

a te rm inate d gra

nt is va lid only

if it is m a de a fte r the e ffe c tive da te of the te rm ination.” 17 U.S.C . § 304(c )(6)(D). Larson a lso a rgue s tha t the 2001
a gre e m e nt c ould not ba

r he r from

re c a pturing thec opy

rights to Supe rboy

an d the Ads through notic e s of te rm inat ion in 2002 a nd 2012, re spe c tive ly , be c a use the 2001 le tte r is a

n “ a gre e m e nt to thec ontra ry ” within them e aning of 17 U.S.C
. § 304(c )(5). W e disa gre e tha t the se provisions e ffe c t the va l idity of the Sie ge ls’ 2001 re a ssignm e nt of the c opy rights to Superboy

an d the Ads. In Milne e x re l . C o y ne v . Ste phe n Sle singe r , Inc
. , 430 F.3d 1036 (9th C ir. 2005), we re

je c te d the argum e nt, a dva nc e d by La rson he re , tha

t C ongre ss inte nde d to pre c lude pa

rtie s from a lie na ting the ir sta

tutory te rm ination rights by c ontra c t. Se e id. a t 1046 (“ C ongre s s . . . a ntic ipate d tha t pa rtie s m ay c ontra c t, a s a

n
a lte rna tive to sta

tutory te rm ination, to re v oke a prior gra nt by re pla c ing it with a
ne w one .” ). And we he ld tha t ne ithe r § 304(c )(5) nor § 304(c )(6)(D) inva lida te d a n he ir’ s re -grant of c o py

rights by c ontra c t in lie u of sta

tutory te rm ination be c a

use the he ir ha d done e xa c tly

what C o n gre ss inte nde d: he ha d use d his “ inc re a s e d ba rga i ning powe r c o n fe rre d by the im m ine nt thre at

of sta tutory te rm ination to e nte r into ne w, m ore a dva

nta ge o u s gra

nts.” Id. 5In this c a se , the Sie g e ls’ ba rga ining position wa s sim ila rly fortifie d by

the ir sta tutory te rm ination powe r. The Sie ge ls be lie v e d tha t in 1999 the y

re c a pture d the rights to the

Supe rboy

works a n d the Ads from

DC by issuing notic e s in 1997 purporting to term inat e pre -1978 gra nts for a wide range of Supe rm an works, inc l uding theAds a

n d Supe rboy . Although the c ourse of litiga

tion c la rifie d tha t the A ds a nd Supe rboy

gran ts we re not prope rly

te rm i na te d

in 1999, the

Sie ge ls, like the he ir in Milne , ba

rga ine d with the ir sta

tutory te rm ination powe r in ha

nd to
ne gotia te a highly

re m une ra tive ne w a gre e m e n t. And, like in Milne , La

rson ha s fa ile d to show tha

t she wa s in a

ny wa y pre judic e d by

this 2001 agre e m e nt, through whic h the Sie ge l s re a ssigne d the purporte dly re c a p ture d rights to DC in e xc ha nge for substa ntia l c o m pe nsation. C

f. C lassic Me dia, Inc . v . Me w born , 532 F.3d 978, 989 (9th C i r. 2008) (holding tha t a n a gre e m e nt to re -gra

nt the rights to La ssie works wa s one “ to the c ontra ry ” unde r § 304(c )(5) whe re the he ir, una ware of he r future te rm ination rights, “ ha d nothing in ha

nd with whic h to ba

rga i n” and
re c e ive d a

m e a ge r $3,000 in c om

pe nsation a s a re sult). B e c a use the 2001
a gre e m e nt re pla c e d a

nd supe rse de d the e arlie r grants of the Supe rboy and Ads
c opy rights, La rson’ s atte m

pts to re c a

pture the se c opy

rights through he

r 2002 a nd 2012 notic e s we re ine ffe c tive
. Se e Milne , 430 F.3d a t 1042–43.

6On re m and, La rson a rgue d for the first tim e tha t he r m othe r, Joa

nne Sie ge l, ha d re sc inde d the 2001 c ontra c tua l se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt in le tte rs writte n in 2002
and tha t DC a c q uie s c e d in the re c ission. As the distric t c ourt note d, pe rm itting Larson to ra ise the se argum e nts now would substa n t ia lly pre judic e DC . Joa

nne Sie g e l ha s sinc e die d . DC would ha ve to c h an ge its de fe nse strate gy , c o nduc t ne w disc ove ry , a

nd the litiga

tion would e ffe c tive ly

have to be gin a ll ove r. The
re sc ission a

nd a c quie sc e nc e a ffirm a tive de fe nse s a re the re fore wa i ve d
. Se e Magana v . C

ommonw e alth of N

orthe rn Mariana Islands, 107 F.3d 1436, 1446 (9th C ir. 1997) (a ffirm a tive de fe nse s m ay be ra ise d for the first tim e on sum m ary judgm e nt “ only

if the de l ay

doe s not pre

j udic e the pla intiff” ). B e c a use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt, DC ’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions
c la im on c ross-a

ppe a l is m oot a

nd we de c l ine to re a c h it. W e a lso re

je c t DC ’ s a

rgum e nt on c ross-a

ppe a l tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in
a m e nding its fina

l judgm e nt in La

rson’ s favor on he r first c la im tha t , be c a use the Supe rm an c opy

rights did not a

rise from works m a de for hire , she va l idly te rm inate d a ll prior gra

nts of thosec opy

rights in 1999. DC

a s ks the c ourt to re visit Judge Larson’ s e arlie r rulings tha t the Supe rm an

works we re not m a de for hire , but
we find no e rror in Judge La rson’ s finding tha

t the se works we re not m a de a t DC ’ s

7“ insta

nc e and e xpe nse .” Tw e ntie th C e nt. Fox Film C orp. v . Entm’t Distrib. , 429 F.3d 869, 881 (9th C ir. 2005). AFFIRM E D
.

8