BULKY DOCUMENTS
`(Exceeds 300 pages)
`
`Proceeding] Serial No: 9 1 187261, 9 1 179064
`
`Filed: 1 - 1 5-20 10
`
`Title: Motion to Consolidate
`
`Part 1 of 1
`
`
`
`Processed by Gloria Braschi
`
`

`
`
`
`rradaniark TrialandAppealaaardElectronic Filing System.
`E$TTA Tracking number:
`EsTTA327
`FWMQ dale:
`
`01I15l2010
`
`3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Party
`
`~
`
`‘
`
`91137231
`Defendant
`Disney Enterprises, Inc.
`Mark E. Miller
`0'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th FL
`San Francisco. CA 94111
`UNITED STATES
`markmiller@omm.com
`
`‘
`
`}
`
`1
`
`Motion to Consolidate
`Mark 5- Miter
`markmiller@omm.com, jweader@omm.com. aechery@omm.com,
`smalel<@omm.com
`Mark E. Millerl
`
`A 01/15/0010
`fitttachments
`Opposition 91187261 Motion to Consolidatepdf ( 5 pages )(17561 bytes )
`Exhibit A to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Motion for Summary Judgment. df
`(41 pages )(1935251 bytes )
`Exhibit B to Motion to Consolidate - SSl's Opp. to Disney's Motion for Summary
`Judgment.pdf ( 50 pages )(3114602 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit C to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Motion for
`Summary Judgment.pdf ( 32 pages )(1642004 bytes)
`Exhibit D to Motion to Consolidate — Order re Supplemental Briefing.pdf ( 3
`3
`pages )(13884 bytes )
`Exhibit E to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Supplemental Opening Brief.pdf(
`31 pages )(179808 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit F to Motion to Consolidate - SSl's Opposition to Disney's Supplemential
`Opening Brief.pdf ( 31 pages )(239159 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit G to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Supplemental
`Brief.pdf (27 pages )(135974 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit H to Motion to Consolidate - Order Granting in Part Counter-Defendant's
`Motion for SJ.pdf( 5 pages )(28288 bytes )
`Exhibit l to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Motion for Summary Dispositionipdf
`( 28 pages )(94275 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit J to Motion to Consolidate - SSl's Opposition to Disney's Motion for
`3
`Summary Dispositionpdt ( 34 pages )(125717 bytes )
`1
`Exhibit K to Motion to Consolidate - Disney's Reply in Support of Motion for
`Summary Disposition.pdf ( 31 pages )(125551 bytes)
`Exhibit L to Motoin to Consolidate - Order Granting Counter-Defendant's M0
`for SJ et al.pdf ( 13 pages )(49936 bytes )
`Exhibit M to Motion to Consolidate - Final Judgmentpdf (4 pages )(22457 b es
`)
`1
`Exhibit N to Motion to Consolidate - Notice of Appeal by SSl.PDF (4 pages
`)(79421 bytes)
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`;
`1
`1
`
`
`
`E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Submission -
`
`Fliers e-mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`

`
`
`
`OFFICE
`IN THE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIALCAND APPEAL BOARD
`
`STEPHEN SLESINGER, INC.,
`
`Oproser.
`
`K
`
`1 V-
`
`DENEY ENTERPRISES» ‘New
`Applicant
`
`
`Opposition No. 91187261
`
`Mark: POOH
`
`Application Nos. 77/189475,
`77/487303, 77/437293
`
`i
`
`‘
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`OPPOSITION NOS. 91188860, 91187261‘, 91186026, 91179064, 91182358, 91183644, 9
`91191230, AND 91192691 AND CANCELLATION NO. 92046853
`9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s December 18, 2009 order indicated that
`
`(Order at 5.) Consequently, Applicant Disney Enterprites,
`consolidation may be appropriate.
`Inc. (“Disney”) hereby moves to consolidate the above-referenced opposition and cancellation
`
`proceedings pursuant to TBMP § 511 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
`
`All of the opposition and cancellation proceedings filed by Stephen Slesinger, inc.
`_
`(“SS1”) turn on the common legal issue of ownership of rights to trademarks derived fromlthe
`11 Winnie the Pooh works (“Pooh Works”), and in particular whether a final judgment issued in a
`federal court action between the parties precludes SSI from relitigating this issue before lthe
`’ Board.‘
`In that federal court action, SSI filed trademark infiingement claims against Disttey
`
`alleging that SSI owned the rights to the Pooh Works. The United States District Court for the
`' Central District of California ruled that “under the clear terms of the [SSI and Disney]
`
`agreements, SSI transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney” and SS1 “retained no
`
`' As requested in the Board’s December 18, 2009 order, Appendix 1
`attaches relevant pleadings ii-om the federal court action. (Order at 4-5.)
`
`identifies ‘and
`
`ll
`
`‘I
`
`
`
`Sl?I:‘Il$227.3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(Ex. L at 8, 3 (emphases added).) Based on that ruling, the district court dismissed
`
`§Sl’s claims and entered final judgment on October 7, 2009.
`
`(Ex. M.) Under the doctrine of
`
`collateral estoppel,
`
`the district court’s rulings are final and binding on SSI and Disney.
`
`‘Nonetheless, SS1 wrongfully seeks to oppose and cancel Disney’s trademark registrations and
`
`applications covering the Pooh Works. Disney has moved to dismiss these proceedings on the
`
`- ground that SS1 is collaterally estopped fi'om asserting that it owns rights in the Pooh Works - an
`
`issue that was “actually litigated” and “necessarily decided” in the federal court action. Because
`
`theopposition and cancellation proceedings are based on this common legal issue, consolidation
`
`2
`
`isappropriate.
`
`HQ‘
`
`CONSOLIDATION IS WARRANTED AND WILL AID THE BOARD’S
`CONSIDERATION OF ‘THESE PROCEEDINGS
`
`“When cases involving common questions of law or fact are pending before the Board,
`
`the Board may order the consolidation of the cases.” TBMP § 511; see also FED. R. CIVR. P.
`42(a).
`In considering whether consolidation is appropriate, the Board will consider the ideniity
`of parties, the similarity of marks, and whether consolidation would conserve resources land
`
`prevent unnecessary expense. See id.; World Hockey Ass ’n v. Tudor Metal Prods. Corp., [185
`USPQ 246, 248 (1975) (holding consolidation appropriate because “opposer [had] in each
`
`instance challenged applicant’s right of registration on the basis of its ownership[.]”)
`
`All of the criteria for consolidation are present here. The parties are identical and the
`
`marks at issue all derive from the Pooh Works, the rights to which were addressed by the district
`
`(See Notice of Opposition (filed Oct. 31, 2008); compare Notices of Opposition in
`court.
`Oppositions No. 91188860, 91186026, 91179064, 91182358, 91183644, 91191230, and
`
`91192691 with Exs. L-N). The opposition and cancellation proceedings present a common issue
`of law:
`the ownership of rights to trademarks derived fiom the Pooh Works, and whetheri the
`court’s final judgment determining that Disney owns all of the rights in the Pooh
`
`SP1:7l5221.3
`
`‘
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Works-—and that SSI owns no rights in the Pooh Works—has collateral estoppel effejt?in
`
`Because all of the proceedings turn on the same legal issue, the pleadings filed by both partie
`
`\
`
`a
`(See Disney’s Notice of Final Determination
`the various proceedings are nearly identical.
`Civil Action (filed Oct. 8, 2009); SSI’s Response (filed Oct. 29, 2009); and Disney’s Reply (flied
`Nov. 18, 2009).) These circumstances make consolidation particularly appropriate. Seel S.
`
`Indus, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1293, * 6 (‘ITAB 1997).
`
`9
`
`HI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`It is beyond question that consolidation will avoid further duplication of effort and enshre
`
`consistency. Because the opposition and cancellation proceedings turn on a common questiori of
`
`law, involve identical parties, and implicate related marks, Disney respectfiilly requests that lthe
`
`Board consolidate these proceedings.
`
`Dated: January 15, 2010
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Mark E. Miller
`Mark E. Miller (Reg. No. 31,401)
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 1
`San Francisco, California 941 1 1-3823
`Phone: 415.984.8700
`Fax: 415.984.8701
`Email: markmiller@omm.com
`
`Attorneys for Disney Enterprises, Inc. .
`
`2 That SS1 has appealed the district court’s order does not change the preclusive effect of
`“[T]he preclusive effects of a lower court judgment cannot be suspended si ‘ ply -
`those rulings.
`by taking an appeal that remains undecided.” Rabi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 327 9th
`Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted).
`In applying Eleventh Circuit law, the Federal Circui has
`stated that “for purposes ofissue preclusion[,] ‘final judgment’ includes any prior adjudicatign of
`an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded concl sive
`efibct.” Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omi ed).
`The D.C. Circuit has stated that “[i]t is well established that a lower court judgment may ave
`preclusive effect despite the lack of appellate review.” Martin v. Dep ’t ofJustice, 488 F.3d 46,
`455 (D.C. Cir. 2007). And the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 states that
`‘[A]
`judgment otherwise final remains so despite the taking of an appeal.”
`7
`3
`
`I
`
`‘ SP1 :78$22'I.3
`
`*
`
`i,.'..s...>.;!,«7as.+.‘:a_.
`
`
`
`.~.._.~ "‘ RN" '
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Dat
`
`O0O0O0
`
`4-21-
`5-12-
`5-27-
`6-3-0
`6-30-08
`7.28.
`OG00
`
`44‘
`
`8.11.
`
`C\O
`
`5.19.
`
`7.6.0
`
`8.11.
`
`8.31
`
`\O\O
`
`9.25109
`
`10.7.09
`
`11.5.09
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AEEENDIX 1
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`C
`
`SSI’s Opposition to Disney’s Supplemental Opening Brief
`
`G
`
`Disney’s Reply in Support of Supplemental Brief
`
`Order Granting in Part Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary
`Judgment
`
`Disney’s Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`J
`
`.
`
`SSI’s Opposition to Disney’s Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`Disney’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition
`
`Order Granting Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and
`Order Denying Counter-Claimant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication
`
`Final Judgment
`
`Notice of Appeal by SS1
`
`
`
`L
`
`N
`
`SP1 :7I5fl7.3
`
`
`
`

`
`C RTIFI
`TE F
`E
`3
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and complete copy ofthe foregoing Motionl
`to Consolidate with exhibits has been served upon counsel for Opposer by mailing said copy vla
`
`First Class mail on this January 15, 2010, to the following address:
`
`‘
`
`Andrew D. Skale, Esq.
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovksy and Popeo, PC
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`Isl Alexandra Echery
`Alexandra Echery
`
`SF‘l:'l85227.3
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`C
`
`2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008 I Page 1 of 4?
`
`1 DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802)
`troce
`omm.com
`
`arade
`
`omm.com
`
`JIH(S.B.#186515)
`VI§_2l'1l‘O
`omm.com
`vs
`1_\/I..GOLDSTEIN(S.B.#1988S8)
`_S
`d oldstem omm.com
`LVE
`& MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
`Telephgnez £310 553-6700
`FacsIm1le:
`310 246-6779
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 Attorne§s for Counter-Defendants
`DISNE ENTERPRISES, INC., THE WALT
`9 DISNEY COMPANY, AND WALT DISNEY
`10
`PRODUCTIONS
`11
`12
`13
`I4
`15
`16
`17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CLARE MILNE an individual, by
`Case No. CV-02-08508 FMC (PLAX)
`and throu h MICHAEL JOSEPH
`c0YNE er RECEIVER, and
`COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
`SNEY
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
`ENTERPRISES, INC., THE ALT
`_
`_
`DISNEY COMPANY AND ALT
`Plamtxffs,
`DISNEY PRODUCTIONS’ M TION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGME
`OR,
`0
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, F
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATIO OF I
`COUNTER-CLAIMANT ST PHEN
`SLESINGER INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`v.
`STEPHEN SLESINGER, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`The Hon. Florence.-Marie Cooper
`
`18
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`IN _
`E.
`STEPHEN Sh SINGER C»
`Counter-Claimant,
`
`Date:
`:
`T”
`PIS:
`
`June 9, 2008
`10:00 .
`coumzsnm 750
`
`25
`26
`
`24 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.;
`THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY;
`and WALT DISNEY
`PRODUCTIONS,
`Counter-Defendants.
`
`28
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 2 of 4i)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION. .............................................................................
`
`........ .. 1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW............................... .f........... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The State Court Action-—SSI’s Claims. ............................................. ..2
`
`The State Court Action—SSI’s Misconduct...........................
`
`......... ..3
`
`The Litigation in this Court................................................................... 5
`
`SSI’s Remaining Counterclaims. ........................................................ ..6
`
`Summary Disposition is Appropriate...................................... ... ...........7
`
`III.
`
`SS_I’S FOURTH THROUGH SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIMS _
`ALLEGE CONTRACT-BASED CLAIMS THAT ARE BARRED BY
`THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT.............................................................. .. 8
`
`A.
`
`Res Judicata Bars All of SSI’s Contract-Based Claims.........
`
`.......... ..9
`
`There Was a Final Judgment on the Merits Against SSI.......... 10
`(i)
`SSI’s Claims Here Mirror Exactly Its State Court Claims. ...... 11
`(ii)
`Collateral Estoppel Also Independentl Bars SS1 from Reviving
`Issues Raised in the Terminated State ourt Action. .................... ..-...21
`
`B.
`
`IV.
`
`ssrs COPYRIGHT TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS
`CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT SS1
`GRANTED ALL OF ITS RIGHTS TO DISNEY. ..................................... ..23
`
`A.
`B.
`
`SS1 Conveyed All ofIts Rights in the Pooh Works to Disney. ........ ..23
`SSI_is Estofiped From Disputing Its Prior ‘Position That It
`Assigned
`Rights. ......................................................................... ..25
`SSI IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION THAT IT IS
`OWNER OF DISNEY’S REGISTERED TRADEMARKS TO T
`POOH WORKS ............................................................................................ ..29
`
`SSI’S CLAIM THAT DISNEY “ORCHESTRATE ” A SCHEME TO
`TERMINATE ITS INTEREST IN THE POOH WORKS FAILS AS A
`MATTER OF LAW. .................................................................................. .31
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION. .......................................................................................... ..34
`
`

`
`
`
`c e2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA bocument 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page3of40
`
`TABLE 01? AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`
`
`4 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. ,
`5
`239 F.3d 1004 (9th C11‘. 2001) ............................................................................23
`6 Alpha Mech., Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. co. Am.,
`133 Cal. App. 4th 1319 (2005) ................................................. ..ll, 20, 21, 22, 23
`7 Anderson v. Liber?» Lobby, Inc. ,
`3
`477 U.S. 242 ( 986)...............................................................................................7
`9 APL Co. Pte. Ltd. v. UK Aerosols Ltd, Inc.,
`2007 WL 3225469 *6 (ND. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007) ............................................. ..28
`10 Astor ChaugfeuredLim. Co. v. Runnfeldt Inv. Corp.,
`11
`910 13.2 1540 (7th C11‘. 1990) ............................................................................29
`12 Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.,
`..
`201 F.3d 815 (6th C11: 2000) ..................................................................
`
`........ ..27
`
`Bourne Co. v. MPL Commc’ns, Inc.,
`13
`675 F. Supp. 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .....................................................................33
`14
`15 Britton v. Co-0 Bankin Group,
`4 F.3d 742
`th C1r. 1 93) ................................................................................ ..27
`
`16
`17
`18
`
`Carne ie v. Household _Intern., Inc. ,
`37 F.3d 656 (7th Cm 2004) .........................................................................28, 29
`Celotex v. Catrett
`477 U.S. 317 (1936)............................................................................................ ..7
`
`19 Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co.,
`20
`500 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2007)...............................................................27
`21
`Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
`845 F.2d 851 (9th C1r. 1988) ............................................................................. ..25
`
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`26
`27
`
`023
`
`Contra Multimin USA, Inc. v. Walco Intern, Inc.,
`2007 WL 1686511, *3 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 8, 2007)................................................30
`del Cam 0 v. Kennedg
`491
`. Supp. 2d 3 i (N.D. Cal. 2006).............................................................. ..1o
`
`Edwin K. Williams & Co. v. Edwin K. Williams & Co.-East,
`377 F. Supp. 418 (C.D. Cal. 1974) .....................................................................30
`Essex Music, Inc. v. ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. ,
`743 F. Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................................... ..29
`
`
`
`

`
`C e2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page4of 40
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`10
`11
`
`TABLE or AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`5
`Franklin Capital Corp. v. Wilson,
`148 Cal. App. 4th 187 (2007) ............................................................................. 10
`Gottlieb v. Kest,
`141 Cal. App. 4th 110 (2006) .................................................................. ..1...2l, 22
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat ’I, Inc.,
`
`24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ........................................................................................32
`Hall v. GE Plastic Pac. PTE, Ltd.,
`327 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... ..27, 28
`
`9 Hamilton v. State Farm_Fire and Cars. Co.,
`
`270 F.3d'778 (9th C1r. 2001) ..............................................................................28
`Hammond Packin Co. v. Arkansas,
`212 U.S. 322 ( 909)................................................................................
`........ ..22
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`ICEE Distribs. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp.,
`
`325 F.3d 586 (5th Cm 2003) ..............................................................................30
`In re Enron Cor .,
`_
`349 B.R. 96 €Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) ....................................................... ........ ..27
`
`In re Palmer,
`
`207 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................22
`Johnson v. Ore on
`141 F.3d 13 1 (9th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... ..28
`
`
`
`18 Kahn v. Kahn,
`
`19
`20
`
`68 Cal. App. 3d 372 (1977) ..............................................................10,11, 21, 22
`_
`Kale v. Obuchowski
`985 F.2d 360 (7tl1 C1r. 1993) ............................................................................ ..27
`
`21 Kay v. Cit ogkancho Ifalos Verdes,
`22
`504 F. d 03 (9th Cm 2007) ...........................................................................8, 22
`Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp.,
`23
`456 U.S. 461 (1982)............................................................................................ ..8
`
`24
`25
`26
`
`Le Parc Cmty. Ass ’n v. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd.,
`110 Cal. App. 4th 1161 (2003) ...........................................................................10
`Legig v. Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass ’n,
`84 Cal. App. 2d 482 (1960) ............................................................................ .. 12
`
`27 Mal 'ack Prods., Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp,
`28
`0 U.S.P.Q.2d 1959 (CD. Cal. 1994) ................................................................25
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`C e 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 50f 40
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`4
`5
`
`3 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`475 U.S. 574 (1986)..............................................................................................7
`McDowell v. Watson,
`59 Cal. App. 4th 1155 (1997) ..................................................................
`........34
`
`6 Mezegz v. State ofCal.,
`........12
`7
`1
`1 Cal. App. 3d 1060 (1984) .................................................................
`A Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc.,
`8 k
`465 U.S. 75 (1984)................................................................................................8
`9 Milne v. Stephen Slesin er, Inc.,
`10 1
`430 F3 1036 (9th 11'. 2005) .............................................................................30
`1 Montere Plaza Hotel Ltd. Psh . v. Local 483 ofthe Hotel Employees Union,
`11
`215 .3d 923 (9thC1r. 200
`...................................................................... ..10, 11
`
`«
`12 7 Mycogen Colf. v. Monsanto Co.,
`13
`28 Cal. 4t 888 (2002)..............................................................................9, 10, 11
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`14
`532 U.S. 742 (2001).......................................................................................... ..27
`
`15 New W. Corp. v. NYM Co. 0 Cal., Inc.,
`
`595 F.2d 1194 (9th Cu. 979) ............................................................................23
`16 .
`; Newsome v. Lee Conn?
`17 ;
`431 F. Supp. 2d 11 9(M.D. Ala. 2006).................
`........................................ ..27
`
`18 Olsen v. Breeze, Inc.,
`
`48 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1996) ...............................................................................11
`19
`. Racine & Laramie v. Dep ’t 09/’Parks & Rec.,
`11 Cal. App. 4th 1026 (1 92) .............................................................................32
`20 3
`21
`Smith v. Los Angeles,
`22 '
`190 Cal. App. 2d 112 (1961) ...............................................................................12
`Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`23 1
`93 Cal. App. 4th 700 (2001) ..................................................................,............33
`24
`Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. ,
`..........4, 5
`25 1
`155 Cal. App. 4th 736 (2007) ..............................................................
`Torrey Pines Bank v. Su er. Ct.,
`26 I
`216 Cal. App. 3d 81{)(1989) ..................................................................21, 22, 23
`
`1
`
`27 » United States v. Dahan,
`
`28 1
`
`1
`
`369 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ................................................................7
`
`- iv .
`
`

`
`C e 2:02-CV-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 6 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`United States v. Kin Features Entm ’t, Inc.,
`
`843 F.2d 394 (9t Cir. 1988) ..............................................................................23
`4
`5' W“ ’s’z‘i’1-”.'z£’1" 3"6E(3%{’&‘}’f 2C6’<1;:§’.ff.”.fTi..................................................................-23
`
`6 ~ Wei5Ic5el62élTg'WRealay Fund II Holding Co. ,
`7
`.
`pp. 4th 234 (1997)...............................................................................9
`3 9 Y°’1"63”1=f§“c1"§3’3°f9ii.° i%.”‘i”'3§%) ......................................................................-24, 31
`
`9 A Zila, Inc. v. Tinnell,
`
`502 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................31
`10 Y
`STATUTES
`11
`.........23
`..........................
`15 U.S.C. § 1l25(a) .........................................................
`12
`17 U.S.C. § 304........................................................................................2, 19, 33, 34
`13
`17 U.S.C. §§ 106-22, 501(a)..............................................................................23, 31
`14
`CAL. BUS.&PROF.CODE§ 17200 ..............................................................32, 33,34
`15
`RULES
`16
`17 : FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................7
`; FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(A) ..................................................................................... ..26
`18
`TREATISES
`19 A 3 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 18.64 (2008) ...............31
`
`3 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT
`§§ 10.03, 10.10[B] n.1.3 (2005) ................................................................. ..25, 31
`
`

`
`Ca ~ e 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 7 of 40
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`The California courts minced no words. SSI’s state court case against
`
`3 Disney was terminated for a “portrait of litigation misconduct run riot,” so
`
`P “breathtaking” that Disney could never receive a fair trial on SSI’s claims. iln
`
`dismissing SSI’s entire case with prejudice, the trial court found, and the Cburt of
`
`S Appeal unanimously affirmed, that SSI’s principals “tampered with the
`
`administration ofjustice” through perjury, forgery, fraud on the court, violations of
`
`l court orders, misrepresentations to the court and Disney, burglary, thefi, criminal
`
`5
`
`trespass, and more. The trial court condemned SSI’s contempt for the judicial
`
`l process in the strongest terms: “SSI is dishonest and shows no remorse.”
`
`SSI now seeks refuge in this Court. Nothing has changed but the courthouse.
`
`Because a terminating sanction is “on the merits,” res judicata and collateral
`
`estoppel conclusively bar SS1 from reasserting any claim or issue that was or could
`have been litigated in its state action against Disney. There is a near-perfect overlap
`
`between the claims SS1 lost in the state case and its claims in this case——vividly
`
`documented by the wholesale word—for-word copying of SSI’s state court
`
`allegations in the original version of its amended federal counterclaims.
`Neither copyright nor trademark law rescues SSI’s claims. In repeated,
`
`0
`1
`
`explicit, and binding admissions, SS1 represented to Disney and the state court that
`it “assign[ed], grant[ed] and set[] over unto Disney” the “sole and exclusive right”
`to the Winnie the Pooh works. After maintaining this position for 16 years in the
`state court, SS1 now tells this Court something different—that it did not convey all
`
`r of its interest to Disney, but retained an “ownership interest” in the Pooh works that
`
`S Disney is infringing by exploiting them without permission. Principles ofjudicial
`i estoppel—not to mention the plain language of SSI’s grant of rights to Disney-
`,
`flatly forbid SSI’s obvious effort to manufacture federal infringement claims in
`
`S defiance of contrary representations and sworn admissions in the state court.
`
`- 1 -
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DlSPOSlTlON
`
`
`
`

`
`0 se 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 8 of 40
`
`Nor is there any remotely cognizable claim based on SSI’s allegation that
`
`1 Disney “orchestrated” the attempted invocation by the Milne and Shepard heirs of
`
`the copyright termination rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 304(d). This Court
`invalidated the termination notices, rendering it impossible for SSI to allegelfacts
`f
`L necessary to state a claim for copyright infringement, breach of contract, or unfair
`
`
`
`business practices.
`II.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW.
`
`1
`
`A.
`
`The State Court Action——SSI’s Claims.
`
`‘
`
`In February 1991, SSI filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
`that Disney had breached the 1983 Agreement. SSI’s initial complaint claimed that
`\ Disney had not accurately accounted for revenue received from exploitation ofthe
`l Winnie the Pooh works (“Pooh Works”) and that Disney was not paying royalties
`‘N based on videocassette sales. (Ex. 5.) Over the next decade, SS1 progressively and
`dramatically expanded the scope of its claims, asserting numerous new theories for
`liability based on the 1983 Agreement. SSI’s final state court pleading, the
`Supplemented Third Amended Complaint (“STAC”), alleged that Disney was
`obligated to pay royalties for virtually every conceivable use of the Pooh Works.
`(Ex. 6.) It also alleged that Disney was not accurately paying royalties onuses of
`the Pooh Works that both parties agreed were royalty-bearing. (Id) Disney
`l vigorously disputed these allegations: SSI’s expansive claims ranged far beyond
`i
`the limited rights SS1 actually received from Milne in the original 1930 grant and
`then assigned to Disney in 1961 and again in 1983; and SSI’s asserted
`p
`} methodologies for calculating royalties were inconsistent with the 1983 Agreement
`A and designed only to yield unconscionable windfalls to SS1.
`The parties engaged in years of discovery, including 121 deposition sessions,
`, nearly 500 requests for admissions, over 1,000 document demands, 15 sets of form
`,
`interrogatories, and close to 2,000 special interrogatories. The trial court appointed
`1 a discovery referee, the late California Supreme Court Justice David Eagleson, to
`- 2 -
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`Cae 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 9 of 40
`
`preside over all discovery proceedings. Justice Eagleson issued 50 reports and
`recommendations on various discovery issues. He also served as one of two
`
`'
`
`referees appointed to rule on specified accounting issues. The parties filed and
`
`litigated numerous substantive motions to the trial court, including summary
`
`adjudication motions. Appellate review was pursued on a number of rulings. The
`; case was one of the longest-running civil actions in California history. SSI changed
`
`counsel of record no fewer than 10 times.
`
`B.
`
`The State Court Action—-SSI’s Misconduct.
`
`In 2002, the details of serious misconduct by SSI in conducting the litigation
`
`0 began to come to light. By 2004, afier compiling irrefutable evidence of systematic
`illegal and fraudulent activities by SS1, Disney moved for a terminating sanction.
`The motion was presented to Judge Charles McCoy during a five—day evidentiaiy
`T hearing. SSI’s principal Pati Slesinger, her husband David Bentson, and their
`
`1 private investigator Terry Sands were called to testify. So, too, were two
`individuals who helped carry out SSI’s illegal activities: convicted felons Dale
`
`i
`
`T Holman, Sr. and his son Dale Holman, Jr., who as a 12-year-old boy served as a
`lookout during SSI’s illegal document thefts. Disney also called one of the nation’s
`leading forensic document examiners, who presented startling evidence of SSI’s
`_ document fabrication and alteration. Disney presented detailed documentary proof
`T of false testimony by SSI’s principals, false verifications of discovery responses,
`9 and false and fraudulent representations to the court. The raw, ugly facts revealed. a
`
`depth of deceit rarely—if ever——witnessed in litigation.
`On March 29, 2004, Judge McCoy issued a 28—page Statement of Decision
`
`dismissing SSI’s case in its entirety with prejudice. (Ex. 8; Ex. 8A.) The court
`, decisively found that SSI had “tampered with the administration ofjustice and
`.
`threatened the integrity of the judicial process” by, among other illicit actions,
`, stealing documents from Disney, altering documents in discovery to conceal their
`~ privileged and confidential nature, lying in interrogatory responses, depositions,
`
`- 3 -
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`Ca e 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 10 of 40
`
`j and court testimony to cover up its fraudulent and criminal activities, and defying
`' discovery obligations and court orders. Especially important to the present motion,
`
`1
`
`1
`
`the trial court found that “the filll sweep” of SSI’s misconduct can never belknown,
`
`and that “SSI cannot give any sort of satisfactory accounting” of what it stole and
`
`the privileged information it improperly obtained. (Id. at 2.) SS1 admitted taking
`Disney documents without creating a record of their numbers or contents. Based on
`
`
`
`i
`
`“[d]eceptions surrounding SSI’s piecemeal and grudging production of Disney
`
`documents,” the court found that “SS1 likely still possesses additional Disney
`
`material?” (Id)
`
`All this and more led the trial court to emphatically conclude it was
`
`impossible for Disney to receive a fair trial:
`
`SSI’s misconduct is so egregious that no remedy short of terminating
`
`sanctions can effectively remove the threat and adequately protect
`
`both the institution ofjustice and [Disney] from further SSI abuse .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The Court does not believe SS1 will comply fully with any future
`
`remedial order zfSS1 concludes, as it apparently has in the past, that
`
`compliance with a court order does not serve its private tactical
`objectives. SSI’s willingness to tamper with, and even corrupt, the
`litigation process constitutes a substantial threat to the integrity of the
`judicial process-—a threat requiring decisive, effective and stem
`sanctions to fully protect the institution ofjustice, its processes and its
`
`litigants from future abuse.
`
`
`' As the trial court found, SSI’s wrongdoing in the state case, including the
`; presentation of false testimony and altered_ evidence to ._Disne and the c urt,
`i continuedeven after commencement ofthis federal action in
`ovember. 002. (See
`. generally Ex. S; Ste hen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 155 Cal. App. 4th 736,
`41-57; 767-76 (20 7).)
`
`- 4 -
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
`
`

`
`Cas ~- 2:02-cv-08508-FMC-PLA Document 396
`
`Filed 04/21/2008
`
`Page 11 of 40
`
`The court’s terminating sanction was unanimously upheld by the California
`
`1 Court of Appeal on September 25, 2007. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney
`
`2 C0., 155 Cal. App. 4th 736 (2007). In a sweeping 41-page opinion, the appellate
`
`court reaffirmed the trial court’s findings of fact, fully agreeing that in View of
`
`1 “SSI’s history of misconduct,” the likelihood it possessed additional “illicitly-
`
`; obtained documents,” and its principals’ “history of duplicity or deliberate
`
`p
`
`indifference to the truth,” there was no way to restore fairness to the legal
`
`L proceedings between SS1 and Disney. Id. at 773. “Simply put, the trial court was
`
`I not