Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 222-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:748
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #097802)
` dpetrocelli@omm.com
`MATTHEW T. KLINE (S.B. #211640)
` mkline@omm.com
`CASSANDRA L. SETO (S.B. #246608)
` cseto@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
`Telephone: (310) 553-6700
`Facsimile:
`(310) 246-6779
`
`Attorneys for the DC Comics Parties
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. CV 04-8400 ODW (RZx)
`LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
`Case No. CV 04-8776 ODW (RZx)
`individually and as personal
`representative of the ESTATE OF
`
`JOANNE SIEGEL,
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
`Plaintiff,
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN
`SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DC
`COMICS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE
`SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND
`SUPERBOY CASES
`
`The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
`
`Hearing Date:
`Hearing Time:
`Courtroom:
`
` March 11, 2013
` 1:30 p.m.
` 11
`
`
`v.
`
`WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
`INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1-10,
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaimants.
`
`LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
`individually and as personal
`representative of the ESTATE OF
`JOANNE SIEGEL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS &
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 222-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:749
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`After consideration of the papers in support of and in opposition to
`
`defendants’ (collectively, “DC”) Motion For Summary Judgment In The Siegel
`Superman And Superboy Cases, the Court hereby makes its findings of
`uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law as follows:
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
`
`No.
`
`Uncontroverted Fact
`
`1 The agreement set forth in Kevin Marks’ October 19,
`2001, letter to John Schulman states:
`“The Property” means all Superman, Superboy and
`related properties (including, for example, Supergirl,
`Steel, Lois & Clark and Smallville), and the Spectre
`property, and includes all pre- and post-termination
`works (including the so-called Superman library),
`characters, names and trademarks relating to the
`Property....
`The Siegel Family would transfer all of its rights in the
`“Superman” and “Spectre” properties (including
`“Superboy”), resulting in 100% ownership to D.C.
`Comics, as between the Siegel Family and D.C. Comics.
`
`Evidence
`Declaration of
`Daniel M.
`Petrocelli
`(“Petrocelli
`Decl.”), Ex. B
`at 19, 21;
`Larson v.
`Warner Bros.
`Entm’t, Inc.,
`2012 WL
`6822241, at *1-
`2 (9th Cir. Jan.
`10, 2013).
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`As set forth in DC’s summary judgment papers, Proposed Order, and
`Proposed Final Judgments:
`1. On January 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s March 26, 2008, partial summary judgment order
`and held that, “as a matter of law,” plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson (referred to herein
`in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne
`Siegel as “Larson”) entered into a settlement agreement with DC on October 19,
`2001. Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1. “Statements from the attorneys for both
`parties establish that the parties had undertaken years of negotiations …, and that
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS &
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 222-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:750
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`the letter” sent by Larson’s attorney, Kevin Marks, on October 19, 2001,
`“accurately reflected the material terms they had orally agreed to.” Id. The Ninth
`Circuit directed this Court to “reconsider DC’s third and fourth counterclaims in
`light of our holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an agreement.” Id. at
`*2.
`
`2. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and instructions on remand,
`id. at *1-2, this Court may now enter final judgment in DC’s favor in the above-
`entitled cases: (1) the “Siegel Superman” case, Case No. CV-04-8400; and (2) the
`“Siegel Superboy” case, Case No. CV-04-8776. In the parties’ October 19, 2001,
`settlement agreement, Larson (and her family) “transfer[red] all of [their] rights” to
`DC, “resulting in 100% ownership to D.C. Comics.” Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 21;
`Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1. This complete transfer bars Larson’s remaining
`claims in the Siegel Superman and Superboy cases and entitles DC to judgment on
`its Fourth Counterclaims in the Siegel Superman and Superboy cases, which seek a
`declaration confirming the October 19, 2001, settlement agreement against Larson.
`DC’s remaining counterclaims are dismissed, without prejudice, as moot.
`Therefore:
`a. Larson’s Claims in the Siegel Superman Case
`i. Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Termination,”
`is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
`Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
`ii. Larson’s Second Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Profits from
`Recaptured Copyrights,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in
`DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
`iii. Larson’s Third Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re: Use of the
`‘Superman’ Crest,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s
`favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS &
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 222-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:751
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`iv. Larson’s Fourth Claim for Relief, for “Accounting for Profits,” is
`DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
`Larson on this claim. See also DN 293, 560.
`b. DC’s Counterclaims in the Siegel Superman Case
`i. DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for “Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001
`Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED, and summary judgment is hereby entered
`in DC’s 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, which they may have in Superman, Superboy, and
`Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 19, 21; Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2.
`ii. DC’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are
`DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT.
`a. Larson’s Claims in the Siegel Superboy Case
`i. Larson’s First Claim for Relief, for “Copyright Infringement,” is
`DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against
`Larson on this claim. See also DN 151 at 62; 175 at 1; Sept. 17, 2007 Hr’g Tr. at
`4:6-5:4, 27:21-22.
`ii. Larson’s Second Claim for Relief, for “Declaratory Relief re:
`Termination,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor
`and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 170, 560.
`iii. Larson’s Third Claim for Relief, for “Violation of the Lanham Act §
`43(a)(1)(B),” is DENIED, and summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor
`and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 174, 560.
`iv. Larson’s Fourth Claim for Relief, for “Violation of California Business
`and Professions Code, §§ 17200 et seq.,” is DENIED, and summary judgment is
`hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this claim. See also DN 174,
`560.
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS &
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 222-3 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:752
`
`
`v. Larson’s Fifth Claim for Relief, for “Injunctive Relief,” is DENIED, and
`summary judgment is hereby entered in DC’s favor and against Larson on this
`claim. See also DN 174, 560.
`b. DC’s Counterclaims in the Siegel Superboy Case
`i. DC’s Fourth Counterclaim, for “Declaratory Relief Regarding the [2001
`Settlement] Agreement,” is GRANTED, and summary judgment is hereby entered
`in DC’s 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, which they may have in Superman, Superboy, and
`Spectre. Petrocelli Decl. Ex. B at 19, 21; Larson, 2012 WL 6822241, at *1-2.
`ii. DC’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims are
`DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT.
`
`Dated: ______________________
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`OMM_US:71281336
`
`
`
`Honorable Otis D. Wright, II
`Judge, United States District Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`[PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF
`UNCONTROVERTED FACTS &
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`