Joanne Siegel et al v. Time Warner Inc et al, No. 2:2004cv08776 - Document 243 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
Joanne Siegel et al v. Time Warner Inc et al Doc. 243 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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