Opinion ID: 3037655
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Execution Conduct

Text: Marder claims that after the Release was executed, Paramount approached her seeking her permission to make a sequel to Flashdance. Marder asserts that Paramount’s request for sequel rights reveals Paramount’s belief that Marder retained ownership rights after the execution of 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., 442 P.2d 641, 664 (Cal. 1968)). However, “if the extrinsic evidence advances an interpretation to which the contract is MARDER v. LOPEZ 6541 not reasonably susceptible, the extrinsic evidence is not admissible.” Id. [11] Our interpretation of the Release is not affected by Marder’s allegations that Paramount approached Marder regarding a sequel to Flashdance. The Release only relates to Flashdance, and various “matters” and “arrangements” concerning that movie. It may be true that Marder retained some undefined rights after the Release, but that does not change the fact that the Release waived “all” and “any” of her claims relating to Flashdance. That Paramount considered creating a sequel that was never made does not change the effect of the Release with respect to claims based on the movie that was made, Flashdance. [12] In conclusion, the Release bars all of Marder’s instant claims against Paramount. Her proposed interpretation of the Release is inconsistent with its terms, because the Release’s language broadly encompasses “each and every claim” relating to Marder’s contributions to the movie Flashdance. Specifically, the Release prevents her from asserting a copyright interest in Flashdance. The district court therefore properly dismissed Marder’s suit against Paramount. IV. Marder Is Barred from Bringing an Infringement Claim Against Sony and Lopez [13] 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 6542 MARDER v. LOPEZ infringement against Sony and Lopez. We find that the district court properly dismissed Marder’s suit against Sony and Lopez.