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)

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:[phone] 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

Dockets.Justia.com

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 Truckstop.net, 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