Source: https://casetext.com/case/marder-v-lopez
Timestamp: 2019-02-21 20:21:01
Document Index: 497702298

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1541', '§ 1636', '§ 1638', '§ 1644', '§ 1648', '§ 106']

Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 | Casetext
450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006)
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses2lockCiting BriefsBriefs64lockCiting CasesCiting Cases645
Marderv.Lopez
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitJun 12, 2006
Dairy Rd. Partners v. Maui Gas Ventures LLC
…Documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity is not questioned by any party may…
Silvas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC
…Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court considers only the "contents of the complaint"…
holding that a court may consider evidence at a motion to dismiss if "(1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to plaintiff&apos;s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion"
Summary of this case from Robinson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.
holding that a district court may consider the "contents of the complaint" and "evidence on which the complaint `necessarily relies&apos; if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff&apos;s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached"
Summary of this case from Allen v. Quest Online, LLC
Summary of this case from Foroughi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
…450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the product labels are central to Bush’s claim and Bush does not…
Robert Helfing, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran Arnold, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
David E. Fink, (argued) White, O'Connor, Curry Avanzado, Los Angeles, California; Dale M. Cendali, (argued) and Paula E. Ambrosini (briefed) O'Melveny Myers, New York, NY, for the defendants-appellees.
The movie Flashdance, released in 1983, tells the story of a woman construction worker from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who performs at night as an exotic dancer. She performs an innovative form of dancing that includes a "chair dance," during which she douses herself with water. Her goal is to obtain formal dance training at a university.
The following facts are primarily taken from Marder's complaint. We consider these facts to be true when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988).
On December 6, 1982, Marder signed a "General Release" ("Release") purporting to discharge Paramount, its subsidiaries, and its executives from claims arising out of the creation of the film. The Release also granted Paramount the right to use Marder's life story to create Flashdance. As consideration, Marder received $2300.
We have reproduced the Release in its entirety as an appendix to this opinion.
In February 2003, Sony released a music video for the Lopez song, "I'm Glad" ("the Video"). The Video featured Lopez's performance as a dancer and singer. According to Marder, the Video contains recreations of many well-known scenes from Flashdance. The complaint alleges that Paramount received money "or other consideration from the licensing or other exploitation of the copyrights in the motion picture, Flashdance."
Apparently, Sony and Lopez initially released the Video without first obtaining permission from Paramount. Paramount gave its permission only after it sent Sony a presumably threatening "legal notice." See Josh Greenberg, J.Lo's Flashdancing Fiasco, E! Online, May 7, 2003, available at http://www.eon-line.com/News/Items/0,1,11740,00.html. To our knowledge, no lawsuit was ever filed by Paramount against Sony or Lopez for using elements of Flashdance in the Video.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. See Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). We must determine whether, "assuming all facts and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, it appears beyond doubt that [Marder] can prove no set of facts to support [her] claims." Libas Ltd. v. Carillo, 329 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).
Generally, the scope of review on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is limited to the contents of the complaint. See Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1141 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2003). A court may consider evidence on which the complaint "necessarily relies" if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Warren, 328 F.3d at 1141 n. 5, Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2002). The court may treat such a document as "part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
It is not proper, however, for us to consider the letter submitted by Sony purporting to confirm an agreement between Sony and Paramount permitting Sony's use of elements of Flashdance in the Video. That letter was created after Marder's complaint was filed, and therefore could not possibly have been a document upon which her complaint "necessarily relie[d]." Paragraphs 20 and 53 of Marder's complaint, however, reference the existence of a "licensing" agreement between Paramount and Sony. Therefore, to the extent the existence of an agreement, oral or written, is alleged in Marder's complaint, we will consider such an agreement. We will not, however, consider the contents of the letter itself.
This is to confirm the prior oral agreement between Paramount . . . and Sony . . . which provided that Paramount granted Sony permission to use elements from Paramount's film FLASHDANCE in the music video entitled "I'M GLAD" featuring Jennifer Lopez.
Both Paramount and Marder agree that California law applies to the interpretation of the Release, as provided by the Release terms. According to the California Supreme Court, a release is the "abandonment, relinquishment or giving up of a right or claim to the person against whom it might have been demanded or enforced . . . and its effect is to extinguish the cause of action." Pellett v. Sonotone Corp., 26 Cal.2d 705, 160 P.2d 783, 787 (1945); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1541. "In general, a written release extinguishes any obligation covered by the release's terms, provided it has not been obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence." Skrbina v. Fleming Cos., 45 Cal.App.4th 1353, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 489 (1996).
The interpretation of a release is governed by the same principles applicable to any other contractual agreement. See Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica, LLC, 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 197, 201 (2002). The court must interpret the Release so as to give effect to the parties' mutual intent as it existed when they contracted. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1636; Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545, 552 (1992). The parties' intent should be inferred from the language of the Release, so long as that language is not ambiguous or uncertain. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639.
The Release, executed on December 6, 1982, provides that Marder "releases and discharges Paramount Pictures Corporation . . . of and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liability, cost and expense of any kind or character which have arisen or are based in whole or in part on any matters occurring at any time prior to the date of this Release." The Release also states that "[w]ithout limiting the generality of the foregoing Release," Marder also releases Paramount from claims "arising out of or in any way connected with, either directly or indirectly, any and all arrangements . . . in connection with the preparation of screenplay material and the production, filming and exploitation of . . . Flashdance."
Furthermore, though in hindsight the agreement appears to be unfair to Marder — she only received $2300 in exchange for a release of all claims relating to a movie that grossed over $150 million — there is simply no evidence that her consent was obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence. Indeed, when she signed the Release, Marder was represented by counsel. She has not asserted that her counsel in 1983 was incompetent or deficient in any way. Accordingly, we hold that enforcing the Release by dismissing the claims against Paramount would not "defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties to the contract." Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 181 (1993).
Admittedly, the word "matter" has a specialized legal definition: "A subject under consideration, [especially] involving a dispute or litigation; case." Black's Law Dictionary 992 (7th ed. 1999). But courts should interpret the words of a contract in their "ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning," unless the parties attach a special or technical meaning. Cal. Civ. Code § 1644 (emphasis added). As Paramount points out, the common definition of the word "matters" also includes the "events or circumstances of a particular situation." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 733 (9th ed. 1991).
We read the Release to suggest that the parties did not intend "matters" to be interpreted in a strictly legal sense. The Release actually encourages a broad reading of "matters," because it encompasses claims that "are based in whole or in part upon any matters occurring" prior to the date of the Release. Marder's present copyright claims are rooted in the contributions she made to the screenplay before the execution of the Release. Thus, her claims are based at least "in part" on "matters" that occurred prior to the date of the Release.
Marder states that, hypothetically, a broad interpretation of "matters" would preclude her from bringing suit if Paramount defamed her dance routine. Paramount counters that the intent of the Release is to protect Paramount against claims with some nexus to Marder's contributions to Flashdance. California contract law states: "However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract." Cal. Civ. Code § 1648. Marder's claims to coownership, based in her contributions to the creation of the film, fall within the language of the Release. Her hypothetical is unpersuasive because a defamation claim would be based on events entirely unrelated to the creation of the movie. Such a claim would lack a sufficient nexus to the "matters" contemplated by the Release.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing Release, Marder hereby releases and discharges [Paramount] from each and every claim . . . heretofore or hereafter arising out of or in any way connected with, either directly or indirectly, any and all arrangements (including but not limited to research, interviews, costumes, photographic sessions, assistance, services and technical advice of any kind) in connection with the preparation of screenplay material and the production, filming and exploitation of the motion picture tentatively entitled "Flashdance". . . .
Marder's reading of the release relating to "arrangements" is strained. Here, "arrangements" is followed by an explanatory parenthetical that lists examples of services Marder might have performed, "including but not limited to research, interviews, costumes, photographic sessions, assistance, services and technical advice of any kind." Marder released Paramount from claims relating to services including but not limited to those listed in the parenthetical. Thus, we believe that any "writing contributions" she made in connection with the screenplay were included in the category of "arrangements." More importantly, the language of the Release states that Paramount is released from "any and all arrangements . . . in connection with the preparation of screenplay material." (emphasis added). A plain construction of "preparation of screenplay material" necessarily includes any of Marder's alleged writing contributions to the screenplay. We therefore hold that the release of claims relating to "any and all arrangements" necessarily includes Marder's writing contributions.
Marder's contention on this point also lacks merit. It is not impermissibly redundant to secure a waiver of claims and a grant of rights in the same document. As Paramount points out, it is generally recommended that a party seeking to acquire life story rights for use in a motion picture include both clauses in such an agreement. See Jay S. Kenoff, 1-5 Entm't Indus. Contracts Form 5-1 ¶¶ 1-2 (Donald C. Farber ed., Matthew Bender Co., Inc. 2004). Furthermore, a release from claims and a grant of rights together are not redundant. A release extinguishes claims against the released party. See Skrbina, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d at 489. By contrast, a grant is an agreement that creates a right. See Black's Law Dictionary 707 (7th ed. 1999). Parties may include both provisions in a contract without undermining the effect of either the grant or the release.
The Ninth Circuit has recognized California contract law's "permissive approach to extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation." Barris Indus., Inc. v. Worldvision Enters., Inc., 875 F.2d 1446, 1450 (9th Cir. 1989). The test for "admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the contract is reasonably susceptible." Id. (quoting Pac. Gas Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Rigging Co., 69 Cal.2d 33, 69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641 (1968)). However, "if the extrinsic evidence advances an interpretation to which the contract is not reasonably susceptible, the extrinsic evidence is not admissible." Id.
We also affirm the district court's dismissal of claims against Sony and Lopez. "Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106." A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). As we held above, under the terms of the Release, Marder cannot sue Paramount to assert a co-ownership in Flashdance. It is therefore impossible for her to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against Sony and Lopez. We find that the district court properly dismissed Marder's suit against Sony and Lopez.
APPENDIX GENERAL RELEASE