Joanne Siegel et al v. Time Warner Inc et al

Filing 243

FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE SIEGEL SUPERBOY CASE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: A. LARSON'S CLAIMS: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons First Claim for Relief, for Copyright Infringement, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and a gainst Larson on this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Second 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 ORDER ED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Third Claim for Relief, for Violation of the Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B), 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 Cl aim for Relief, for Violation of California Business and Professions Code, §§ 17200 et seq., is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DCs favor and against Larson on this claim.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larsons Fifth Cla imfor Relief, for Injunctive Relief, is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered inDCs favor and against Larson on this claim. B. DC'S COUNTERCLAIMS: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DCs Fourth Counterclaim, for Declaratory Relief Regarding the [20 01 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, wor ldwide 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
18
19

Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx)
FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE
SIEGEL SUPERBOY CASE
The Hon. Otis D. Wright II

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

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 the related Siegel Superman case—which

14

mirror DC’s Third and Fourth Counterclaims in this Siegel Superboy case—“in

15

light of [its] holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an agreement.” Id. at

16

*2.

17

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

18

granting DC’s February 7, 2013 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 235,

19

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

20

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

21

Superboy” case, Case No. CV-04-8776; and (2) the related “Siegel Superman” case,

22

Case No. CV-04-8400 (addressed in a separate Final Judgment filed concurrently

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Counterclaim in this case, which seeks a declaration confirming the October 19,
-1-

This complete transfer bars Larson’s

FINAL JUDGMENT

1

2001 settlement agreement against Larson.

2

dismissed, without prejudice, as moot. Therefore:

DC’s remaining counterclaims are

3

A. Larson’s Claims

4

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

5

“Copyright Infringement,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s

6

favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 151 at 62; 175 at 1; Sept. 17,

7

2007 Hr’g Tr. at 4:6-5:4, 27:21-22.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Larson’s Second

9

Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Termination,” is DENIED, and

10

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

11

also DN 170, 560.

12

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

13

for Relief, for “Violation of the Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B),” is DENIED, and

14

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

15

also DN 174, 560.

16

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

17

for Relief, for “Violation of California Business and Professions Code, §§ 17200 et

18

seq.,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against

19

Larson on this claim. See also DN 174, 560.

20

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

21

for Relief, for “Injunctive Relief,” is DENIED, and judgment is hereby entered in

22

DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 174, 560.

23

B. DC’s Counterclaims

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

counterclaim.

28

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

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

-2-

FINAL JUDGMENT

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

AS MOOT.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: April 18, 2013

10
11

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

OMM_US:71285795

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

FINAL JUDGMENT