Joanne Siegel et al v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al

Filing 724

FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERMAN CASE by Judge Otis D. Wright : Consistent with this Courts March 20 and April 18, 2013 Orders collectively granting DCs February 7, 2013 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 717, 723), this Court may now enter final judgment. A. LARSON'S CLAIMS: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons First Claim for Relief, for Declaratory Relief re: Termination, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Second Claim for Relief, for Declaratory Relief re: Profits from Recaptured Copyrights, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Third Claim for Relief, for Declaratory Relief re: Use of the Superman Crest, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Fourth Claim for Relief, for Accounting for Profits, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this claim. B. DCs COUNTERCLAIMS: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DCs Fourth Counterclaim, for Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001 Settlement] Agreement, is GRANTED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this counterclaim. The Court declares that, under the parties October 19, 2001 settlement agreement, Larson and her family transferred to DC, worldwide and in perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all copyright interests, that they may have in Superman, Superboy, and Spectre. IT IS ACCORDINGLY FURTHER ORDERED that DCs First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

12

LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
individually and as personal
representative of the ESTATE OF
JOANNE SIEGEL,

13

Plaintiff,

11

14
15
16
17

Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)
FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE
SIEGEL SUPERMAN CASE
The Hon. Otis D. Wright II

v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT

1

JUDGMENT

2

On January 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

3

Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s March 26, 2008 partial summary-judgment order

4

and held that, “as a matter of law,” Plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson (referred to herein

5

in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne

6

Siegel as “Larson”) entered into an enforceable settlement agreement with

7

Defendants (collectively, “DC”) on October 19, 2001. Larson v. Warner Bros.

8

Entm’t Inc., Nos. 11-55863, 11-56034, 2013 WL 1113259, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 10,

9

2013). “Statements from the attorneys for both parties establish that the parties had

10

undertaken years of negotiations . . . , and that the letter” sent by Larson’s attorney,

11

Kevin Marks, on October 19, 2001, “accurately reflected the material terms they

12

had orally agreed to.” Id. The Ninth Circuit directed this Court to “reconsider

13

DC’s third and fourth counterclaims in light of [its] holding that the October 19,

14

2001, letter created an agreement.” Id. at *2.

15

Consistent with this Court’s March 20 and April 18, 2013 Orders collectively

16

granting DC’s February 7, 2013 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 717,

17

723), this Court may now enter final judgment in DC’s favor in two of three long-

18

running Superman cases presently before this Court: (1) the above-titled “Siegel

19

Superman” case, Case No. CV-04-8400; and (2) the related “Siegel Superboy” case,

20

Case No. CV-04-8776 (addressed in a separate Final Judgment filed concurrently

21

herewith). In the parties’ October 19, 2001 settlement agreement, Larson (and her

22

family) “transfer[red] all of [their] rights” to DC, “resulting in 100% ownership to

23

D.C. Comics.” Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli (“Petrocelli Decl.”) Ex. B, at

24

21; Larson, 2013 WL 1113259, at *1.

25

remaining claims in this case and entitles DC to judgment on its Fourth

26

Counterclaim in this case, which seeks a declaration confirming the October 19,

27

2001 settlement agreement against Larson. DC’s remaining counterclaims are

28

dismissed, without prejudice, as moot. Therefore:
-1-

This complete transfer bars Larson’s

FINAL JUDGMENT

1

A. Larson’s Claims

2

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for

3

“Declaratory Relief re: Termination,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered

4

in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Second

6

Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Profits from Recaptured Copyrights,”

7

is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on

8

this claim. See also DN 293, 560.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Third Claim

10

for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Use of the ‘Superman’ Crest,” is DENIED,

11

and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See

12

also DN 293, 560.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Fourth Claim

14

for Relief, for “Accounting for Profits,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby

15

entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.

16

B. DC’s Counterclaims

17

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for

18

“Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001 Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED,

19

and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this

20

counterclaim.

21

settlement agreement, Larson and her family transferred to DC, worldwide and in

22

perpetuity, any and all rights, title, and interest, including all copyright interests,

23

that they may have in Superman, Superboy, and Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B, at

24

19, 21; Larson, 2013 WL 1113259, at *1–2.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

The Court declares that, under the parties’ October 19, 2001

-2-

FINAL JUDGMENT

1

IT IS ACCORDINGLY FURTHER ORDERED that DC’s First, Second,

2

Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

3

AS MOOT.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 18, 2013

7
8

____________________________________
Honorable Otis D. Wright, II
Judge, United States District Court

OMM_US:71247304

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

FINAL JUDGMENT