Opinion ID: 734276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Columbia's Termination Was Proper.

Text: 20 Feltner argues that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants' breach of the license agreements was sufficiently material to enable Columbia to terminate the agreements. In support of his argument, Feltner cites Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d at 586-87, and Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1529-31 (9th Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), which held that the licensing agreement at issue was not rightfully terminated because the licensee's breach did not go to the root of the matter, Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1530 (citations omitted), or did not constitute a total failure in the performance of the contract. Rano, 987 F.2d at 586 (citation and internal quotation omitted). 21 However, both Rano and Fantasy dealt with licensing agreements that did not have an express contractual provision authorizing termination. See Rano, 987 F.2d at 583; Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1529. In contrast, each of the license agreements in this case has an express provision authorizing Columbia to terminate the agreement if the licensee fails to make payments of the License Fee or any portion thereof when due. Because these agreements expressly consider the failure to timely pay royalties material, Columbia's termination of the agreements was proper. See Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1529 (stating that a bona fide dispute concerning royalty payments does not automatically constitute a material breach unless the contract so provides ) (emphasis added and omitted). 22