`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:903
`
`
`Marc Toberoff (State Bar No. 188547)
` mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com
`Keith G. Adams (State Bar No. 240497)
` kadams@toberoffandassociates.com
`Pablo D. Arredondo (State Bar No. 241142)
` parredondo@toberoffandassociates.com
`David Harris (State Bar No. 255557)
` dharris@toberoffandassociates.com
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`22337 Pacific Coast Highway, #348
`Malibu, California, 90265
`Telephone: (310) 246-3333
`Fax:
`(310) 246-3101
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim
`Defendant, Laura Siegel Larson,
`individually and as personal representative
`of the Estate of Joanne Siegel
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No: 04-CV-08400 ODW (RZx)*
`Case No: 04-CV-08776 ODW (RZx)*
`
`Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S.D.J.
`Hon. Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC
`COMICS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE
`SIEGEL SUPERMAN AND
`SUPERBOY CASES
`
`Declaration of Keith Adams and
`Statement of Genuine Issues of Fact and
`Law filed concurrently
`
`Date: March 25, 2013*
`Time: 1:30 p.m.*
`Place: Courtroom 11*
`
`*: The Court has stated that it will take
`the motion(s) under submission and hold
`a hearing if necessary. Dkt. 707. Docket
`citations herein are to Case No. 04-CV-
`08400.
`
`
`LAURA SIEGEL LARSON,
`individually and as personal
`representative of the ESTATE OF
`JOANNE SIEGEL,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:904
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 3
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`THE MANDATE DOES NOT SUPPORT PREMATURE
`JUDGMENT .................................................................................................... 6
`
`ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT PREVENT SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT .................................................................................................... 9
`
`The October 19, 2001 Letter Did Not Transfer The Copyrights
`And DC Is Not Entitled To A Declaration Of Rights To That
`Effect ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`The Letter’s Language Does Not Support DC’s
`Interpretation ............................................................................... 9
`
`Any Ambiguity Must Be Resolved By The Trier Of Fact ....... 10
`
`The Circuit Did Not Hold That The Siegels Assigned
`Rights ........................................................................................ 10
`
`A Judgment That The Siegels “Are” Obliged To Transfer
`Rights To DC Would Not Settle The Issue .............................. 11
`
`DC Did Not Perform Or Even Offer To Perform ..................... 14
`
`The Failure To Complete A Long-Form Agreement Did
`Not Excuse DC’s Non-Performance ......................................... 15
`
`The Siegels Did Not Breach The Letter ................................... 16
`
`
`B. DC Is Not Entitled To Specific Performance...................................... 12
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`DC’s Anticipatory Breach/Repudiation ......................... 16
`
`DC’s Actual Breach ....................................................... 19
`
`The Siegels’ Rescission .................................................. 20
`
`DC’s Acquiescence and Abandonment .......................... 22
`
`
`III. FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW PREVENTS SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AS TO SUPERBOY AND THE SUPERMAN ADS ............. 23
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`i
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:905
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Abdulkhalik v. City of San Diego,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110062 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2009) ..................................... 12
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 10
`
`Barndt v. County of L.A.,
`211 Cal. App. 3d 397 (1989) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Beverage v. Canton Pacer Mining Co.,
`43 Cal. 2d 769 (1955) ........................................................................................ 14-15
`
`Blackburn v. Charnley,
`117 Cal. App. 4th 758 (2004) .................................................................................. 13
`
`Brown v. Grimes,
`192 Cal. App. 4th 265 (2011) .................................................................................. 19
`
`Campanelli v. Bockrath,
`1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7981 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 1997) ............................................. 8
`
`Castaneda v. Dura-Vent Corp.,
`648 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................... 10
`
`CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado,
`158 Cal. App. 4th 1226 (2008) ................................................................................ 13
`
`City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co.,
`165 Cal. App. 4th 455 (2008) .................................................................................. 16
`
`Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn,
`532 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 24
`
`Darling Int’l, Inc. Baywood Partners, Inc.,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50985 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2007) ....................................... 18
`
`Daugherty Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`14 Cal. App. 3d 151 (1971) ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Dobson v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93823 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2012) .......................................... 15
`
`Doe v. State of Nebraska,
`2002 WL 225907 (D. Neb. Dec. 14, 2002) ............................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:906
`
`
`Edgerly v. City & County of San Francisco,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155192 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2011) ....................................... 8
`
`Edlin v. M/V Truthseeker,
`69 F.3d 392 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc.,
`640 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 15
`
`Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Air Florida Sys., Inc.,
`822 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Ferguson v. City of Cathedral City,
`197 Cal. App. 4th 1161 (2011) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Firth v. United States,
`554 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1977) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Freedman v. St. Matthias Parish,
`37 Cal. 2d 16 (1951) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Freeman v. Mostafavi,
`2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10154 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 8, 2005) .............. 23
`
`Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim,
`25 Cal. App. 4th 11 (1994) ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Griffin v. Beresa, Inc.,
`143 Cal. App. 2d 299 (1956) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
`192 Cal. App. 2d 268 (1961) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd.,
`531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`Hall v. City of L.A.,
`697 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Hil-Mac Corp. v. Mendo Wood Products, Inc.,
`235 Cal. App. 2d 526 (1965) ................................................................................... 22
`
`Hull v. Ray,
`211 Cal. 164 (1930) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Honda v. Reed,
`156 Cal. App. 2d 536 (1958) ................................................................................... 23
`
`Industrial Indemnity v. Superior Court,
`224 Cal. App. 3d 828 (1990) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Irwin v. American Interactive Media,
`1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16223 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 1994) ....................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:907
`
`
`Jaunich v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.,
`647 F. Supp. 209 (N.D.Cal.1986) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Johnson v. Goldberg,
`130 Cal. App. 2d 571 (1955) ................................................................................... 18
`
`Katz v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98940 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010) ...................................... 13
`
`Lancaster v. Tilton,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48403 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2007) ......................................... 8
`
`Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc.,
`2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 671 (9th Cir. January 10, 2013) ................................. 1, 7, 11
`
`Li’l Red Barn, Inc. v. Red Barn Sys., Inc.,
`322 F. Supp. 98 (N.D. Ind. 1970) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Local 659, I.A.T.S.E. v. Color Corp. of America,
`47 Cal. 2d 189 (1956) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Loop Building Co. v. De Coo,
`97 Cal. App. 354 (1929) .................................................................................... 17, 20
`
`Maffei v. N. Ins. Co. of N.Y.,
`12 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 1993) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes,
`191 Cal. App. 4th 435 (2010) ............................................................................ 16, 18
`
`Marvel Characters v. Simon,
`310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 24
`
`McCreary v. Mercury Lumber Distributors,
`124 Cal. App. 2d 477 (1957) ................................................................................... 23
`
`Milne v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 24
`
`Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.,
`28 Cal. 4th 888 (2002) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`N.Y. Times v. Tasini,
`533 U.S. 483 (2001) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Narayan v. EGL, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Ninety Nine Invest. v. Overseas Courier Service (Sing.) Priv.,
`113 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (2003) ................................................................................ 14
`
`Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel,
`53 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:908
`
`
`Pacific Coast Engineering Co. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.,
`411 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1969) ............................................................................. 17, 19
`
`Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Pichignau v. Paris,
`264 Cal. App. 2d 138 (1968) ................................................................................... 18
`
`Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. Shareholders Protective Comm.,
`770 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc.,
`56 Cal. 2d 169 (1961) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Rubin v. Fuchs,
`1 Cal. 3d 50 (1969) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.,
`2004 WL 4737297 (D. Utah June 9, 2004) ............................................................... 9
`
`Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.,
`542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................... 5
`
`Thomas v. Ponder,
`611 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 6
`
`U.S. for Use of Bldg. Rentals Corp. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co.,
`498 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1974) ................................................................................... 21
`
`Union Oil Co. of California v. Greka Energy Corp.,
`165 Cal. App. 4th 129 (2008) .................................................................................. 13
`
`Vaxiion Therapeutics, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner, LLP,
`593 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (S.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................... 15
`
`Wallace v. City of San Diego,
`479 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc.,
`11 Cal. 4th 1 (1995) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Walters v. Calderon,
`25 Cal. App. 3d 863 (1972) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Wilson v. Lewis,
`106 Cal. App. 3d 802 (1980) ................................................................................... 21
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(5) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(6)(D) ..................................................................................... 2, 23
`
`
`
`
`v
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:909
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1439 .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1639 ................................................................................................ 9
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1689(b) ......................................................................................... 20
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1691 .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1657 .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1693 .............................................................................................. 22
`
`Cal. Civ. Code §1657 ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`vi
`Tables of Contents and Authorities
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:910
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
` Defendant DC Comics’ (“DC”) summary judgment motion (“Mot.”) is falsely
`
`premised. DC cannot rush this case to judgment based on its willful misreading of
`
`the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision. The Circuit did not hold that the October 19,
`
`2001 letter from the Siegels’ attorney to DC actively transferred the Siegels’
`
`copyrights to DC, as DC solely argues. It held only that the letter was “an acceptance
`
`of terms negotiated between the parties” that “was sufficient” to create a contract on
`
`October 19, 2001, and remanded this case for adjudication of DC’s counterclaims.
`
`Larson v. Warner Bros. Ent., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 671, at *3 (9th Cir.
`
`January 10, 2013). What the resulting October 19, 2001 agreement meant, and
`
`whether and to what extent it is still enforceable given DC’s subsequent conduct, are
`
`entirely separate questions raised by DC’s counterclaims. The answers to those
`
`questions show that DC is not entitled to summary judgment – and why DC did not
`
`bring a proper summary judgment motion as to its counterclaims.
`
`As a matter of law, the October 19, 2001 letter could not have transferred the
`
`Siegels’ copyrights, as it unambiguously states that the Siegels “would” transfer their
`
`rights in the future. DC thus requires specific performance of the October 19, 2001
`
`letter. But specific performance requires that DC first prove that the Siegels breached
`
`the agreement plus additional elements, which DC cannot establish and has not even
`
`attempted to prove in its motion. Tellingly, DC asked in its motion that its Third
`
`Counterclaim for breach of contract be dismissed. DC can neither prove the elements
`
`of breach nor obtain specific performance under California law.
`
`Today, DC insists that the terms are “everything in this [October 19] letter,
`
`nothing more.” But in 2001-2002, DC acted as though it was not bound by it. For
`
`instance, the October 19, 2001 letter set forth a clear unequivocal obligation of DC to
`
`pay the Siegels by March 31, 2002, and there is no condition in the October 19, 2001
`
`letter that any “long-form” agreement first be negotiated. That day came and went.
`
`DC did not pay or even offer to pay, on March 31, 2002 in exchange for the Siegels’
`
`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
`
` 1
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:911
`
`performance, as it had promised, breaching its agreement. Instead, DC conditioned
`
`its performance on new and revised terms found nowhere in the October 19, 2001
`
`letter, all of which favored DC and hurt the Siegels.
`
`After attempting to grind and muscle the Siegels, DC cannot now have its cake
`
`and eat it too, and avoid the consequences of its actions in 2001-2002. Under clear
`
`California law, DC’s anticipatory breach, followed by its actual breach of the October
`
`19, 2001 letter, excused the Siegels’ performance and allowed them to rescind the
`
`October 19, 2001 letter. In May 2002, the Siegels rejected DC’s overreaching
`
`attempts to “claw back” on its promises to them, and exercised their right of
`
`rescission. In response, DC did not retract its demands and revert to the October 19,
`
`2001 letter. DC did not offer to perform under the October 19, 2001 letter or claim
`
`that the Siegels were bound by the October 19, 2001 letter. Instead, DC acquiesced
`
`and engaged in new negotiations with the Siegels. DC asserted no rights under the
`
`October 19, 2001 letter until after the Siegels filed this action in October, 2004.
`
`In short, when it mattered, DC did not honor the October 19, 2001 letter,
`
`anticipatorily breaching and then actually breaching its terms, causing justifiable
`
`rescission of the October 19, 2001 letter, and precluding its enforcement today.
`
`At a minimum, this raises genuine issues of material fact barring summary
`
`judgment. DC entirely failed to address these issues in its motion, and they cannot be
`
`decided ad hoc as that would violate Ms. Larson’s right to due process.
`
`
`
`In addition, the October 19, 2001 letter could not have transferred the Siegels’
`
`recaptured Superboy copyrights or their rights in the early Superman promotional
`
`announcements (“Ads”). Under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(6)(D), a terminated copyright
`
`can only be re-granted to the original grantee after the notice of termination is served.
`
`The Siegels did not serve Superboy termination notices until 2002, and did not serve
`
`termination notices regarding the Ads until 2012. The October 19, 2001 letter could
`
`not have transferred to DC the Siegels’ termination interests in Superboy or the Ads
`
`as a matter of law, and therefore the October 19, 2001 letter has no bearing on the
`
`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
`
` 2
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:912
`
`Siegels’ Superboy case (C.D. Cal. Case No. 04-CV-08776).
`
`
`
`
`
`DC’s rush to judgment must be rejected, and its motion denied.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`In 1997, Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson (the “Siegels”) served notices
`
`of termination pursuant to the Copyright Act as to Jerome Siegel’s Superman
`
`copyright grants to DC. Statement of Issues (“SGI”) ¶2. In 1999, the parties entered
`
`into formal negotiations, in which the Siegels were represented by attorney Kevin
`
`Marks and DC by Warner’s then-General Counsel, John Schulman. SGI ¶3.
`
`
`
`On October 16, 2001, DC made a settlement offer to the Siegels. SGI ¶3. On
`
`October 19, 2001, Marks sent a “term sheet,” in letter form, to Schulman, which the
`
`Ninth Circuit later held was a valid acceptance of DC’s offer creating an agreement
`
`(the “October 19, 2001 Letter”). SGI ¶5. DC now argues and admits that these were
`
`the only terms the parties ever agreed to. SGI ¶52-53. The October 19, 2001 Letter
`
`contained a specific, time-sensitive obligation of DC: “an annual guarantee of
`
`$500,000 per year payable for ten years beginning March 31, 2002.” SGI ¶6. There
`
`was also a $1,000,000 “signing bonus,” presumably payable before March 31, 2002,
`
`and a $2,000,000 “advance” for the period beginning January 1, 2000. Id. At the
`
`time the parties agreed to this March 31, 2002 deadline, they intended the terms of
`
`the October 19, 2001 Letter to be transposed into an agreement format for signature
`
`by the parties, which should have been a relatively simple task. SGI ¶7.
`
`
`
`DC did not accept the October 19, 2001 Letter as the parties’ agreement.
`
`Instead, on October 26, 2001, Schulman sent a letter to Marks, enclosing a “more
`
`fulsome outline” of deal terms (the “October 26, 2001 Letter”). SGI ¶8. The
`
`October 26, 2001 Letter was sent when Marks was in China for a long period; he did
`
`not return until late November 2001, and it was not forwarded to the Siegels. SGI ¶9.
`
`
`
`As is evident from the October 26, 2001 Letter, and as Marks testified,
`
`Schulman’s “outline” contained new and changed terms that were materially different
`
`from those in the October 19, 2001 Letter, all in DC’s favor. SGI ¶¶10-16. Among
`
`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
`
` 3
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:913
`
`other changes, the outline required the Siegels to assign additional copyrights to DC,
`
`reduced the Siegels’ royalty in many instances, changed when and where credit
`
`would be given, and added numerous warranty and indemnity provisions found
`
`nowhere in the October 19, 2001 Letter. Id. The October 26, 2001 Letter also states
`
`that DC was preparing a “draft agreement.” SGI ¶8. The October 26, 2001 Letter
`
`confirms the “Annual Payment (Advance)” of “$500,000 per year for ten years,
`
`commencing 2002, payable 3/31 of year,” i.e., beginning March 31, 2002. SGI ¶17.
`
`
`
`After over three months, DC finally sent Marks a draft agreement on February
`
`1, 2002 (the “February 1, 2002 Draft”), which was vastly different from the October
`
`19, 2002 Letter, as Marks testified. SGI ¶¶6, 18-21. In addition to the new material
`
`terms in DC’s October 26, 2013 Letter, DC insisted on numerous new and changed
`
`terms – all to DC’s benefit and the Siegels’ detriment. SGI ¶¶19-21.
`
`
`
`The March 31, 2002 payment deadline came and went; DC did not pay or even
`
`tender the $500,000 annual payment, the $1,000,000 signing bonus, or the
`
`$2,000,000 advance, as DC had expressly promised and as set forth in the October
`
`19, 2001 Letter. SGI ¶24.
`
`
`
`On May 9, 2002, Joanne Siegel sent a letter to Richard Parsons, COO of DC’s
`
`parent, AOL Time Warner Inc., objecting to the February 1, 2002 Draft and stating:
`
`“When we made those difficult concessions and reluctantly accepted John
`
`Schulman's last proposal six months ago [the October 19, 2001 agreement], we were
`
`stabbed in the back with a shocking [February 1, 2002] contract” and that “[a]fter
`
`four years we have no deal and this contract makes an agreement impossible.” SGI
`
`¶25; Declaration of Keith Adams (“AD”), Ex. 4.
`
`On May 21, 2002, Time Warner sent a reply letter to Joanne, stating it was
`
`“quite troubled by [her] feeling[s].” SGI ¶26. However, it did not retract its
`
`aggressive demands in the February 1, 2002 Draft, or go back to the terms in the
`
`October 19, 2001 Letter that the Siegels confirmed was their agreement. SGI ¶¶26-
`
`27. Instead, DC falsely maintained that the draft “accurately represented the
`
`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
`
` 4
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:914
`
`agreement previously reached,” when a plain comparison of its Draft to the October
`
`19, 2001 Letter revealed that this was not true. SGI ¶¶6, 18-21, 26.
`
`
`
`On September 21, 2002, the Siegels sent a letter in which they terminated
`
`Marks and provided “formal notification that we are totally stopping and ending all
`
`negotiations with DC Comics … effective immediately.” SGI ¶29. Later, in
`
`November 2002, the Siegels served a § 304(c) notice of termination regarding
`
`Superboy, with an effective date of November 17, 2004. SGI ¶30.
`
`
`
`In response to all of these events, DC did not claim rights under the October
`
`19, 2001 Letter. SGI ¶33. Nor did DC comply, or offer to comply, with its
`
`obligations under the October 19, 2001 Letter. SGI ¶32. Instead, in 2003-04, DC
`
`simply resumed negotiations with the Siegels. SGI ¶31.
`
`
`
`The parties’ new negotiations were unsuccessful and accordingly, on October 8
`
`and October 22, 2004, the Siegels filed suits to enforce their statutory terminations as
`
`to Superman and Superboy, respectively. SGI ¶¶34-35. On November 22, 2004, DC
`
`counterclaimed, and contended for the first time in three years that the October 19,
`
`2001 Letter constituted an agreement. SGI ¶¶36-37. DC also alleged for the first
`
`time that the Siegels had repudiated that agreement by their May 9, 2002 and
`
`September 21, 2002 letters. SGI ¶38. DC’s Third Counterclaim against the Siegels
`
`was for breach of contract, and its Fourth Counterclaim (on which it now moves)
`
`sought only declaratory relief as to the October 19, 2001 Letter. SGI ¶¶39-40.
`
`
`
`Judge Larson concluded on summary judgment that the parties had failed to
`
`reach an agreement, citing the “materially different” terms of the October 26, 2001
`
`Letter and the “vastly different” terms of the February 1, 2002 Draft. SGI ¶47. This
`
`Court then entered a Rule 54(b) judgment, and both sides appealed. SGI ¶¶48-49.
`
`
`
`On March 6, 2012, Ms. Larson served a termination notice on DC regarding
`
`early Superman Ads, with an effective date of March 12, 2014. SGI ¶63.
`
`
`
`On January 10, 2013, the Circuit reversed Judge Larson’s ruling, holding that
`
`the October 19, 2001 Letter constituted a valid acceptance of DC’s offer sufficient to
`
`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
`
` 5
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DC COMICS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-08776-ODW-RZ Document 228 Filed 03/04/13 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:915
`
`form an agreement on October 19, 2001. SGI ¶58. The Circuit did not disturb Judge
`
`Larson’s findings as to the “materially” and “vastly different” terms in DC’s October
`
`26, 2001 Letter and February 1, 2002 Draft, and remanded the case for further
`
`adjudication of DC’s contract claims – its Third and Fourth Counterclaims. SGI ¶59.
`
`On January 29, 2013, DC, for the first time in 12 years, offered “to tender
`
`payment” to Ms. Larson under the October 19, 2001 Letter, subject to purported
`
`“rights of offset,” rendering its offer illusory. SGI ¶60. DC also not provide the
`
`basis for its calculations, leaving it completely uncertain whether DC’s tender
`
`complied with the complicated royalty scheme in the October 19, 2001 Letter. SGI
`
`¶61. Troublingly, the amount of Superman royalties DC claimed it owed Ms. Larson
`
`in 2013, subject to DC’s purported “rights of offset,” was not much higher that what
`
`DC had testified was owed Ms. Larson seven years earlier in 2006. SGI ¶62.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record discloses “that there is no
`
`genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of
`
`identifying evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for
`
`trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The “non-moving
`
`party’s evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in
`
`[its] favor.” Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010). The court must
`
`make all “credibility determinations” in favor of the nonmoving party, Narayan v.
`
`EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2010), and “must disregard all evidence
`
`favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Wallace v.
`
`City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2007).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`
`
`THE MANDATE DOES NOT SUPPORT PREMATURE JUDGMENT
`
`DC’s entire argument in support of judgment is premised on its outright
`
`misrepresentation that the Ninth Circuit “held” that “[Ms.] Larson … transferred a