Arc Music, Inc. v. Wayne Henderson, Sr., et al

Filing 6

Filed (ECF) Appellant Wayne Henderson, Sr. response opposing motion (,motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Date of service: 05/10/2010. [7332021] (MBA)

Download PDF
A r c Music, Inc. v. Wayne Henderson, Sr., et al Doc. 6 Courtof Appeals No.10-55644 L I N I T E DSTATES COURTOF APPEALS F O RTHE NINTH CIRCUIT A R C MUSIC,INC. Plaintiff-Appellee VS. W A Y N E HENDERSON" SR. Defendant-Appellant A p p e a l from the United States District Courl C e n t r a lDistrictof California (CWx) D i s t r i c t CourtNo. CV09-07967D5F T h e Honorable Dale S. Fischer RE,PLY OPPOSITION APPELLEE'S IN TO MOTIONTO APPELLANT'S DISMISS APPEALFORLACK OF JURISDICTION RICKEY IVIE, ESQ. M I C H A E L B. ACKERMAN, ESQ. IVIE, MCNEILL & WYATT L A W OFFICESOF 444 SouthFlower Street M I C H A E L B. ACKERMAN Los Angeles, CA 90071 6 4 0 1 L a PuntaDrive Telephone:213-599-1013 L o s Angeles,CA 90068-2827 e: 8 T e l e p h o n 323-468-8 82 d A t tor neysfo r D efen ant- CountercIaimant-AppeI Iant W A - T N E I-IENDERSON.SR. Sr.'s Reply in Opposition Appellee to Arc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE, I. II. INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT. A . J u r i s d i c t i o nis properpursuant to 28U.S.C.5L292. B . J u r i s d i c t i o nis alsoproperpursuant to the"collateral orderd o c t r i n e " . . . . ......7 .......7 ..12 C . T h e district court'sordermay removethe districtcourt'sjurisdiction w h i c h would terminate action the properin this instance D. Jurisdiction is w i t h o u t a f i n a lorder. . . . .16 ,..17 I I I . CONCLUSION. 18 A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, Sr.'s Reply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to TABLE OF AUTHORITTES F e d e r a lCases C a r s o n v . AmericanBrands,Inc., 4 5 0 U.S.79,84 (1981).... Copley Press,Inc. v. Higuera-Guerrero (In re Copley Press,Inc.), 5 1 8F.3d 1022.1025(9th Cir. 2008) C o r d o z av. Pacific StatesSteelCorp., 3 2 0 F.3d989,997(9th Cir. 2003) D i g i t a l EquipmentCorp. v. DesktopDirect, Inc., 7,9,9-10 13,l4 . . . . 13-14 5 1 r U. S .8 6 3 , 6 7( 1 9 9 4 ) . 8 H a r p e r &. Roe,Publishers,Inc. v. Nation Enters., 4 7 1 U . S .539,558(1985). 13 . . . .1 6 14 o / l n re CopleyPress, Inc., ( 5 1 8F . 3 d1 0 2 2 1 0 2 5 9 t hC i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , M a r a t h o n Oil Co. v. United States, 8 0 7 F . 2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 - 6 5(9 t h C i r . 1986) M a r t i n e z v. Gomez, 1 3 7F.3 d l l 2 4 (9'n i r . 1998) C M o s e sH. ConeMem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 4 6 0 U.S. r, 9 (1983). N e g r e t ev. Allianz Life InsurenceCo. of North America, 5 2 3F .3d i 091, 1097(9th Cir. 2008) I r ' l e h m ev. tJ.S.Dept. of Agric., r 4 9 4F .3d 846,856 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007) O r e g o nNatural Resources Council,Inc., v. Kantor, (9th Cir. 1996) 9 9 F.3d334,336-37 Inc., R a m i r e zv. Fox Television, (9thC i r . 199 3 ) 998F.2d743,747 S o u t h e r n Cal. Edison Co. v. WestinghouseElec. Corp. ( l n re Subpoena Served on Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n), A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, Sr.'sReply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to 1l . . .r 7 9 l8 8 l7 (9th 813F . 2 d1 4 7 3 , 1479-80 Cir. 1987) Tagupa v. E a s t - L I / e sCtr., Inc., t 18 6 4 2F.2d 1 1 2 7 ,l l 2 9 (9thC i r . 1 9 8 1 ) T r u c k s t o p . n e LLC v. Sprint Corp., t, 5 4 7 F.3 d 1065,1068(9thC i r . 20 0 8 ) United States v. Pedroza, t4 7 . . . .17 3 5 5F . 3 d1 1 8 9 1 1 9 0 ( 9 tC i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . , h Z a c c h i r yv. Scripps-Howard i Broadcasting Co., ( 4 3 3U. S .5 6 2 , 5 7 61 9 7 7 ) . F e d e r a Statutes l l 7 u. s . c . 1 0 6 $ l 7 U. S . C$ 2 0 a ( a ) . 2 8 U. S . C . $ 2 9 1. . . 1 2 8 U. S . C . 5 1 2 9 2 . 2 8 U. S . C$ 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . . . 28U.S.C.5t292(b) 28U.S.C.5220... .1 F e d e r a Rules l F e d e r aRule of Civil Procedure l 56(0 I t, 1 2 1 0 ,1 l 6, g .......6 5,7,8.,9 1/,ro 1't 1C' s . . . . 5, 13, 15 A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, Sr.'s Reply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to I. INTRODUCTION Henderson, appeals Appellant Wayne fromthedistrictcourt'sdecision Sr., a n dorderin whichthe districtcourtcommitted reversible errorbv findine (grantingsummary Henderson's copyrightinfringement claim was time-barred judgmentto Plaintiff Arc Music, Inc. ("Arc")), adjudication and declaratory Henderson's copyrightinringement t h e r e f b r edisrnissing claim, as well as the refusalto denyor continueArc's motionsto permit d i s t r i c tcourt's erroneous p e r m i t Henderson pursuant Rule 56(f). essential discovery to A l t h o u g h the districtcourt'sordergrantingsummary adjudication, thereby judgmentin favor of Arc, is a final judgmentpursuant the g r a n t i n gdeclaratory to s t a t u t o r ydefinition contained 28 U.S.C. 52201, in this is not the only basisfor jurisdiction. t h e Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals exercise to is J u r i s d i c t i o n properin the Ninth Circuitpursuant 28 U.S.C.$ 1292(a)(l) to w h i c h statesthat,"Interlocutoryorders of the district courts of the United States,the U n i t e d StatesDistrict Courtfor the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of G u a m ,and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,or of thejudges thereof, g r a n t i n g , continuing,modifuing,refusingor dissolvinginjunctions,or refusing to d i s s o l v eor modify injunctions,exceptwherea direct review may be had in the S u p r e m eCourt. " T h e district court's decisionand ordereffectivelydenythe injunctionsoughtby Henderson and permanently depriveHenderson any methodto halt Arc Music of Sr.'sReply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, Inc.'s and counterdefendants' brazencopyrightinfringement.Because an t h e district coutl's grantof summary adjudication and dismissal Henderson's of c o p y r i g h tinfringement claim effectivelypennanently deniesHenderson injunctive r e l i e f ,28 U.S.C.Q1291is not utilizedas the solebasisfor jurisdictiondespite the c i t a t i o nof the statuteas suchby Arc Music, Inc. ("Arc") in its motion to dismiss. T h e "collateral-order doctrine" alsorequires exercise the ofjurisdictionin this i n s t a n c e .Because districtcourtrefused denyor continueArc's motionsso the to t h a t essential discovery couldbe conducted, courtconclusively the determined w h e t h e rArc committedactsof infringement within the statutory threeyear period p r i o r to Henderson's filing of his claim beforeHenderson the opporlunityto had c o n d u c tany discovery.Therefore, court effectivelydenieddiscoverywhich the adversely impacted meritsof the action,and because the discoverycannotbe o b t a i n e dafter finaljudgmentnor can it be obtained regarding dismissed claims,the d i s t r i c t court's actionis unreviewable appealfrom final judgment. Furthermore, on t h e districtcourt'sdecision may removeitsjurisdiction, thuseffectively denying Henderson district courtjurisdictionand endinghis action. Therefore, pursuant United States to Code 51292,$ 1291,the collateralorder d o c t r i n e ,and a rare exception permittingthe Courtsof Appealsto exercise j u r i s d i c t i o nwithouta final order,Henderson opposes Music,Inc.'s motionto Arc A p p e l l a n tWayne Henderson, Sr.'s Reply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to dismissfor lack ofjurisdiction and asksthis Court of Appealsto allow the appeal. I I . ARGUMENT A . Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to28 U.S.C.$1292(a)(1) has T h e court of appeals jurisdictionto hearan appealonly when a federal jurisdiction.See,UnitedStates Pedroza,355F.3d I 189, I 190 v. statute confers the ( 9 t h Cir. 2004)Qtercuriam). In civil appeals, courthasjurisdiction over final to d e c i s i o npursuant 28 U.S.C.$ 1291. s of rigid application this principlewas found to createundue Because created to certainexceptions however,Congress h a r d s h i pin somecases, appeal of as 28 exceptions, U.S.C. $ 1292(a)(l), permits i t . . . O n e these of continuordersof the districtcourts. . .granting, r i g h t from "[interlocutory] i n g , modifying,refusingor dissolvinginjunctions. . ." (internal citcrtions Brands, Inc., 450u.S. 79, 83-84( 198I ). o m i t t e d )Carsonv. American the l n Carson,as in the instantcase, districtcourt'sorderdid not refusean had i n j u n c t i o nin specificterms,the ordernonetheless the practicaleffect of doing claim Henderson's seventh s o . See,Ibid. Although the districtcourt dismissed the ( f o r injunctiverelief) without prejudice, claim for an injunctionagainstall of because the dismissal cannotcureby amendment c o u n t e r d e f e n d a n tHenderson s. the o f the sixth claim for copyrightinfringement.Therefore, districtcourt's the the d e c i s i o nand ordereradicates premisefor injunctiverelief by dismissing and as a resultthe district court u n d e r l y i n gclaim for copyrightinfringement Arc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to Sr.'s Reply in Opposition Appellee A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, effectivelydeniedinjunctiverelief permanently. T h e substantial effectof the order,not its terminology, determinative. is See, (9th Cir. 1981)(findingdenial T a g u p a East-West v. Ctr.,Inc.,642F.2d 1127,1129 o f mandamus wheresubstantial appealable effectwas to refusean injunction). T h i s Court of Appealspermittedan appeal, pursuant 28 U.S.C. to judgment $ 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 )in a casein which the districtcourtordergrantedsummary , t o the federalgovernment wherethe districtcourt'sruling, that the government had u n t i l a certaindateto publishregulations, effectivelydeniedthe plaintiff e n v i r o n m e n t agroup'srequest an injunctionrequiringpublicationby an earlier l for d a t e , see, Oregon I'{aturalResourcesCouncil, Inc., v. Kantor,99 F.3d 334,336-37 ( 9 t h Cir. 1996).This Court alsodetermined that an ordernot denominated an as i n j u n c t i o n ,but which barredthe defendant from discussing settlement parallel in c l a s slitigation,was in substance injunctionand thus immediately an appealable u n d e r$ 1292(a)(l).See,Negretev. Allianz Life Ins. Co of North America,523 (9th Cir. 2008). F . 3 d 1091,I 096-98 B e c a u s e districtcourt'sorderdenies the Henderson right to an injunction the p e r m a n e n t l ythe orderis reviewable an interlocutory , on appeal.See,Marathon Oil C o . v. UnitedStates, 807 F.2d 7 59, 7 64-65(9th Cir. 1986),cert. denied,480 U .5. judgmentto defendant 9 4 0 (1987) (the grantof partialsummary was reviewable on Sr.'sReply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, to appealfrom permanentinjunction for defendant wherethe summaryjudgment o r d e rprovidedthe basisfor issuingthe injunctionby applyingthe "inextricably b o u n d " standard; althoughthe injunctionwas permanent, appealwas interthe l o c u t o r ybecause districtcourtretained the jurisdictionto conductan accounting). B e c a u s e 1292(aX1) was intended carveout only a limited exception to 5 to t h e final-judgment rule, the Supreme Courthasconstrued statute the narrowlyto ensure that appeal of right underI1292 (a)(1)will be available as only in c i r c u m s t a n c ewherean appeal s will furtherthe statutory purpose "[permitting] of l i t i g a n t sto effectuallychallenge interlocutory ordersof serious, perhaps i r r e p a r a b l econsequence." , (internalcitationsomitted)Carsonv. AmericanBrands, I n c . , 450U.S.79, 84 (1981). U n l e s sa litigant can showthat an interlocutory orderof the district court might h a v ea "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence," that the ordercan be and " e f f e c t u a l l ychallenged" only by immediate appeal, the generalcongressional p o l i c y againstpiecemeal review will precludeinterlocutoryappeal.Ibid. A l t h o u g hthe districtcourtdismissed Henderson's claim fbr injunctiverelief w i t h o u t prejudice, districtcourtpermitted actswhich Henderson the the soughtto e n j o i n because districtcourt erroneously the held Henderson's copyrightinfringem e n t claim was time-barred.Consequently, districtcourt effectivelydenied the H e n d e r s o n injunctionto abatethe continuingcopyrightinfringement an involving t h e persistent sale,exploitation, manufacture public performance and of H e n d e r s o n ' copyrighted s song"Loneliest Man in Town" (the"Song")as embodied App -is the in the derivativework "It's Alright" (the "New Song"),because district court judgmentin by claim "time-barred" grantingdeclaratory Henderson's deemed of amendment the claim for Henderson's f a v o r of Arc, which effectivelyprecludes i n j u n c t i v erelief. The resjudicata effectof the districtcourt's decisionwould bar a c l a i m for injunctiverelief in this instance. in otherthanArc engaged the sale,reproduction A l t h o u g h counterdefendants the of o r public performance the New Song,which embodies Song,during the three these authorized filing of his claim,Arc expressly y e a r periodprior to Henderson's Arc hasnot Because to a c t i v i t i e sby its license the othercounterdefendants. to theseactionsand continues to Arc continues authorize r e v o k e dits license, the b e n e f i tfrom them,and because rights in andto the Songbelongto Henderson Arc provisions 17 U.S.C.$204(a), hasno rightsin andto of p u r s u a nto the express t t h e Sons whatsoever. to T h e district court's decisionpermitsArc's infringement continueunabated This Court of Appealsexerinjunctiverelief permanently. a n d deniesHenderson without c i s e djurisdiction in a casewherethe districtcourt granteda dismissal a the the p r e j u d i c ebecause Ninth Circuit deemed dismissal "final order" because Martinezv. of t h e statute limitationsbar couldnot be curedby amendment. is Henderson G o m e z , l 3 7 F.3d 1124(9'hCir. 1998)Qtercuriam). Similarly, npp.@.'sReplyinoppositiontoAppelleeArcMusic,Inc.,sMotiontoDismiss l0 of because the of incapable curing his claim for injunctiverelief by amendment in of s t a t u t e limitationsbar cited erroneously the districtcourt'sdecision. no Henderson remedyto abate the B e c a u s e districtcourt'sdecisionleaves the by t h e continuingcopyrightinfringement the counterdefendants, decisionhas rights in the copyrightin and to the Song t h e effect of giving Arc ownership and evenlicensethe c o n t r a r yto copyrightlaw (by permittingArc to exercise to owner,pursuant 17 U.S.C.$ 106,eventhough rightsof the copyright exclusive of or A r c lacksa valid written transferof ownership assignment rights from H e n d e r s o nas requiredpursuantto 17 U.S.C. $20a(a)). Moreover, the district c o u r t ' s decisionhas the effect of giving Arc ownershipin the New Song, when A r c ' s only claim to any ownershipin and to the New Song is as a purportedowner o f the Song. So, despite the absenceof a valid written transfer of ownership by the by to H e n d e r s o n Arc in andto the Song required 17 U.S.C.$204(a), district tne in rtghts effectively c o u r l ' s decisione f f e c t i v e l y grantsrights to Arc tn andto the Songand the New to contradiction the tertnsof CopyrightAct. This is a seriousand S o n gin express of consequence the districtcourt'sdecision. irreparable and to F u r t h e r m o r ethe damage Henderson, to the integrityof the Copyright , may the because actionsof Arc andthe counterdefendants not be A c t , is irreparable to ownerpursuant 17 U.S.C. rightsof a copyright u n d o n e .One of the exclusive app. to nc''sMotion Dismiss 11 neverconsented the to $ 106,is the right to createderivativeworks. Henderson d e r i v a t i v ework created did Arc seekhis consent nor prior to grantingthe license. A r c brazenlyauthorizedthe creationof the derivativework "It's Alright" as if Arc w e r ethe actualcopyrightowner. The derivativework was created pursuant to A r c ' s illegal and invalid authorization thusHenderson's and exclusiveright to c r e a t ederivativeworks as the copyrightownerhasbeenirreversiblyusurpedby A r c . AlthoughArc's license be terminated, usurpation exclusive can the of rights u n d e rcopyrightlaw cannotbe undone,andtherefore damage irreparable. the is T h e district coutl's orderoperates, effect,as a stayof the statusquo, in w h i c h permitsthe continued infringement Henderson's of copyright.The only p o s s i b i l i t yto diminishthe damage to permit immediate is appealto reverse the erroneous decisionof the districtcourt. A decisionmonthsor yearsinto the future o n l y serves devalueHenderson's to exclusive rights as the copyrightowner in and t o the Songfurtherand to destroythe monopolyrightsgranted copyrightowners to p u r s u a n t the CopyrightAct. Thus,immediate to appealis essential. B . Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to the o'collateral order doctrine" T h e "collateralorderdoctrine"perrnitsa litigant to appealfrom a "narrow that do not terminate litigation,but must,in the interestof c l a s sof decisions the a c h i e v i n ga healthylegal system, nonetheless treated final." Digital be as A p p e l l a n t y n eH e n d e r s o n , r . ' sR e p l yi n Opposi t i o n A p p e l l e e r c Musi c ,Inc.' sMoti o nto D i s m i s s Wa S to A 12 EquipmentCorp. v. DesktopDirect, Inc.,5l I U.S. 863, 867 (1994)(internol q u o t a t i o n s and citations omitted). T h e doctrine... appliesto a small classof decisions, which finally determine c l a i m sof right separable from, and collateral rights asserted the action,too to, in i m p o r t a n tto be deniedreview andtoo independent the causeitself to requirethat of appellate consideration deferred be until the whole caseis adjudicated." (internal citations omitteQ Copley Press,Inc. v. Higuera- Guerrero (In re Copley Press, I n c . ) , 5 1 8F.3d 1022,1025(9thCir. 2008). A collateralordermust"conclusively determine disputedquestion, the r e s o l v ean importantissuecompletely separate from the meritsof the action,and be e f f e c t i v e l yunreviewable appealfrom a finaljudgment" in orderfor it to be on immediately appealable. Ibid. All threerequirements mustbe satisfied qualifu ut to c o l l a t e r a lorder for the purpose appeal See,Cordozav. Pacific States of . Steel C o r p . , 3 2 0F.3d989, 997 (9h Cir. 2003);seealso, v. Sprint LLC Corp.,547 F.3d 1065,1068(9thCir . 2 0 0 8 ) . I n the instantcase, districtcourt declinedto denyor continueArc's the m o t i o n in response Henderson's to pursuant Federal request to Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), despitea declaration presented which specified that Henderson c o u l dnot present certain evidence essential his claimbecause evidence, to the w h i c h certainlyexisted, was in the handsof the counterdefendants. previously As n o t e dherein,Henderson filed his amended answerand counterclaims Feb 1. on A p p e l l a n W a y n eH e n d e r s o n , sR e p l yi n Opposi t i o n A p p e l l e e r c Musi c ,Inc.' sMoti o nto D i s m i s s t Sr.' to A 13 2010 and Arc responded with its motionson February8, 2010. Consequently, H e n d e r s o n not servehis initial discovery did request Arc to producedocuments to u n t i l a shorttime later (within a few weeks). T h u s ,salesinformationshowingunit salesof the New Songduring the three y e a r periodprior to Henderson's filing of his claim,manufacturing information d u r i n g the threeyearperiodandpublic performance royalty statements, all e v i d e n c e direct infringement of duringthe threeyearperiodprior to Henderson's f i l i n g , were not availableto Henderson.Although,due to the time limitationsfor r e p l y to motions,unauthenticated reportsfrom a company which monitorssalesof a l b u m sshowingweekly salesof the New Song,and therefore exploitationof the S o n g ,by the counterdefendants within the threeyearperiodprior to filing was a t t a c h e d Henderson's to response Arc's motions,the districtcourt seemed to to disregard suchevidence. Because Henderson not havethe opportunity conductany discovery did to p r i o r to answering Arc's motions,not dueto any lack of diligenceon Henderson's p a r t ,Henderson lackedessential documents prove infringement to within the three y e a r periodprior to Henderson's filing. Consequently, districtcourt clearly the e r r e dand/orabused discretion decliningto denyor continueArc's motions. its in T h e districtcoutt's collateralorderrefusingto denyor continueArc's A p p e l l a n t a y n eH e n d e r s o n , sR e p l yi n Opposi t i o n A p p e l l e e r c Musi c ,Inc.' sMoti o n to D i s m i s s W Sr.' to A 14 Rule 56(f) deprived to motionspursuant FederalRule of Civil Procedure of H e n d e r s o n discoveryrelatedto his claimsandthe collateralorderdeprived provehis claim. As a consequence the of H e n d e r s o n the ability to conclusively of copyrightinfringement claim and the of d i s t r i c t court's dismissal Henderson's g r a n tof summaryadjudication Arc, the districtcourl deprivedHenderson to of of e x c l u s i v erights as the copyrightownerand incomerelatedto the exercise those to Arc's motion exclusive rights. The districtcourt'srefusal denyor continue p u r s u a n t FederalRule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(0 is unreviewable upon to althoughdiscovery ordersare reviewable a p p e a lfrom final judgmentbecause on this orderprecluding discovery was not a discovery a p p e a fiom final judgment, l of o r d e rper se. Thus,as a resultof the districtcourt'serroror abuse discretion r e g a r d i n gits collateralorderrefusingto denyor continueArc's motion for to has s u m m a r yadjudication and motionto dismisspursuant Rule 56(0, Henderson on harm and cannotseekredress appealfrom finaljudgment. As a result, suff-ered appealandjurisdiction is proper t h e collateralorderdoctrinepermitsHenderson's i n this Court of Appeals. relief pursuant the collateralorderrule frorn the to A l s o , Henderson seeks d i s t r i c t court's holding that "collectingroyaltiesduringthe limitationsperiodthat a r e earnedonly because actionstakenoutsideof the limitationsperiod cannot of to Sr.'s Replyin Opposition AppelleeArc Music, lnc.'s Motion to Dismiss A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, 15 form the basisfor an independent claim for directcopyrightinfringement." Order G r a n t i n gPlaintiff s Motion for Summary Adjudication, page4. The district court i t s e l f citesno controllingcaselaw directlyaddressing issue, the district this yet c o u r t permitsthe wrongful collectionof royaltiesby someone otherthan the c o p y r i g h towner and claimsthat suchactionis not copyrightinfringement. " B y establishing marketable a right to the useof one'sexpression, copyright s u p p l i e s economicincentiveto create the and disseminate ideas." Harper & Roe, P u b l i s h e r sInc. v. NationEnters.,471 , U.S. 539,558 (1985). "The economic p h i l o s o p h ybehindthe clauseempowering Congress grantpatents to and copyrights i s the convictionthat encouragement individualeffort by personal of gain is the b e s tway to advance public welfarethroughthe talentsof authorsand inventorsin Science and usefulArts." Zacchiniv. Scripps-Howard Broodcasting Co. 433 U.S. 5 6 2 , 5 7 6(1977). In glaringcontrast, districtcourt'sdecision this case the in p e r m i t sanyoneto wrongfully collectroyaltiesrightfully due to the copyrightowner w i t h o u t penaltypursuant the CopyrightAct. Therefore, to affirming the district c o u r t ' sdecision opposes philosophy the behindthe Copyright Act and eliminates t h e economicincentiveto create and disseminate ideasdescribed the Act. in C . The district court order may removethe district court's jurisdiction which w o u l d terminatethe action Appellant Wu -1r, 16 without prejudiceis alsoappealable whereit "effectivelysends A dismissal Ramirezv. Fox Television, Inc., 998 F .2d 7 43, t h e party out of [federal]court." See, final where 7 4 7 (9th Cir. 1993). A districtcourt decisionmay alsobe considered i t s resultis that appellant "effectivelyout of court."MosesH. ConeMem'l Hosp. is v . Mercury Construction Corp.,460U.S. l, 9 (1983)(citations omitted). I n the instantcase, districtcourt'sdecisionmay not permit amendment the of claimsbecause the resjudicata effectof the district of t h e copyrightinfringement the of the c o u r t ' s decisionregarding statute limitations. Consequently, district judgment remaining seems preclude to Henderson's declaratory c o u r t ' sdecision effectively knocksF{enderson of out c l a i m s . If so,the districtcourt'sdecision Henderson's remainingclaimsare statelaw claims,thereby d i s t r i c t court because would lack the requisiteclaim(s)to Henderson t e r m i n a t i n gthe actionbecause jurisdiction.As a result, districtcourt'sdecision the may be i n v o k efederal "final." considered without a final order D . Jurisdiction is proper in this instance jurisdictionhasbeenheld to be properdespitealack I n rare cases, appellate of o f a final orderwhere:(1) the orderwas "marginallyfinal;" (2) it disposed "an (3) the issueof nationalsignificance," review of the orderimplemented unsettled policy Congress sought promote 28 U.S.C.$ 1292(b); to in and (4) judicial same Arc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to Sr.'s Replyin Opposition Appellee A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, 17 economywould not be servedby remand. SouthernCal. Edison Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (In re Subpoena Servedon Cal. Pub. Utit. Comm'n), 813 F .2d 1473, 1479-80(9th Cir. 1987);seealso, I{ehmer v. {lS. Dept. of Agriculture, 4 9 4 F.3d 846,856n.5 (9th Cir.2007). I n the instantcase, districtcourt'sdecisionwas marginallyfinal because the i t effectivelypermanently deniedinjunction;dismissed essential claimswith p r e j u d i c eand evenwhen claimsweredisrnissed without prejudiceamending may b e impossible due to the resjudicata effectof the decision;and may effectively r e m o v ethis casefrom thejurisdictionof the districtcourt. The district court's d e c i s i o nseems dispense to with exclusive rights of copyrightownersin certain i n s t a n c e s the economicincentives and providedto suchcopyrightownerspursuant t o the CopyrightAct, both issues nationalsignificance.Immediate of appealwould a d v a n c e policy Congress the soughtto promotein 28 u.S.C. 51292(b) because immediate appealwould deterrnine controllingquestion law over which there a of i s a cleardifference opinion. Finally,judicial economywould be servedby of i m m e d i a t eappealbecause would elirninate needto revive a dismissed it the claim a t the conclusionof the proceedings. I I I . CONCLUSION F o r the foregoingreasons, Henderson respectfully requests that the Court A p p e l l a n tWayne Henderson, Sr.'sReply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss to 18 reverse districtcourt,reinstate shouldhearthe appeal, the Henderson's copyright judgmentto i n f r i n g e m e n tclaim, claim for injunctiverelief and denydeclaratory Arc. R E S P E C T F U L L YSUBMITTEDthis 10'r'Day May, 2010. of L A W OFFICESOF M I C H A E L B. ACKERMAN M i c h a e lB. Ackerman, Esq. R i c k e yIvie, Esq. I v i e , McNeill and Wyatt A t t o r n e y sfor Defendant-Appelant I W a y n eHenderson, Sr. nv, t"4V'L /l , //, ( ,.r' ('----42-*\ ./' to A p p e l l a n tWayneHenderson, Sr.'s Reply in Opposition AppelleeArc Music, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss l9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?