Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 1 of 6

(1 of 11)

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAN 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, Plaintiff - Counter-claim Defendant - Appellant, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a corporation; DC COMICS, a New York General Partnership, Defendants - Counterclaimants - Appellees.

No. 11-55863 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ

MEMORANDUM *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 2 of 6

(2 of 11)

LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, Plaintiff - Counter-claimDefendant - Appellee, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a corporation; DC COMICS, Defendants - Counterclaimants - Appellants.

No. 11-56034 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-08400-ODW-RZ

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen G. Larson and Otis D. Wright, District Judges, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 5, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, District Judge.** Defendants Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. and DC Comics (collectively, DC) appeal the district judges grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson as to DCs third and fourth counterclaims (which,

The Honorable John W. Sedwick, Senior U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
2

**

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 3 of 6

(3 of 11)

both parties concede, are governed by California law).1 The district judge entered judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We reverse and remand as to these counterclaims. The district judge erred in granting summary judgment to Larson as to DCs third and fourth counterclaims. The central issue in these counterclaims is whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement during their negotiations over the rights to Superman in 2001 and 2002. The district judge, however, failed to address whether the October 19, 2001, letter from Larsons then-attorney constituted an acceptance of terms negotiated between the parties, and thus was sufficient to create a contract. We hold, as a matter of law, that the October 19, 2001, letter did constitute such an acceptance.2 The October 19, 2001, letter itself plainly states that the heirs have accepted D.C. Comics offer of October 16, 2001

DC also appeals the district judges grant of summary judgment to Larson as to certain aspects of Larsons first claim and DCs first counterclaim, as well as the entirety of DCs second counterclaim. Larson cross-appeals the district judges grant of summary judgment to DC as to the other aspects of Larsons first claim and DCs first counterclaim. As explained below, we do not reach the issues raised by these claims. Larson, in her brief, states that this question should be resolved as a matter of law. See Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc., 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692, 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone, 110 Cal. Rptr. 675, 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)).
3
2

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 4 of 6

(4 of 11)

in respect of the Superman and Spectre properties. The terms are as follows . . . . What follows is five pages of terms outlining substantial compensation for the heirs in exchange for DCs continued right to produce Superman works. The letter ends with Larsons attorney thanking DCs attorney for his help and patience in reaching this monumental accord. Further, although it is the objective, and not subjective, understandings of the parties that determine whether they reached an agreement, extrinsic evidence of the parties actions may be used to determine whether the oral offer referred to in the letter had, in fact, been made. Cf. Wedeck v. Unocal Corp., 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501, 507-08 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Statements from the attorneys for both parties establish that the parties had undertaken years of negotiations, that they had resolved the last outstanding point in the deal during a conversation on October 16, 2001, and that the letter accurately reflected the material terms they had orally agreed to on that day. We reject Larsons arguments that either state or federal law precludes a finding that such a contract could have been created by the October 19, 2001, letter. California law permits parties to bind themselves to a contract, even when they anticipate that some material aspects of the deal [will] be papered later. Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011);
4

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 5 of 6

(5 of 11)

Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). This principle applies notwithstanding the lack of an express reference to an intended future agreement, as long as the terms of any contract that may have been formed are sufficiently definite that a court could enforce them (as is undoubtedly the case here). Facebook, 640 F.3d at 1038 (noting the minimal requirements to form an enforceable contract, and that California law does not require express delegation regarding potential missing terms of a contract); Patel v. Liebermensch, 197 P.3d 177, 182-83 (Cal. 2008). That Facebook involved a contract signed by both parties does not render it any less controlling here; under Californias statute of frauds, the only signature that is required is that of the party against whom a contract is sought to be enforced. See Ulloa v. McMillin Real Estate & Mortg., Inc., 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 4-5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007); see also 1 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts 359 (10th ed. 2005). Nor is 17 U.S.C. 204(a) a bar to the validity of any such contract; that statute expressly permits an agreement transferring ownership of a copyright to be signed by a duly authorized agent of the copyright owner, and Larson does not contest that the heirs attorney was such an agent. We therefore reverse the district judges grant of summary judgment to Larson and direct the district judge to reconsider DCs third and fourth
5

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-1

Page: 6 of 6

(6 of 11)

counterclaims in light of our holding that the October 19, 2001, letter created an agreement. Because a judgment on those claims in DCs favor would appear to render moot all of the other questions in this lawsuit, we decline to address these other issues at this time. REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.3

We reach our conclusions without the need to consider the documents that are the subject of DCs motions for judicial notice and to supplement the record. DCs motions, and Larsons motion to strike the related portions of DCs brief, are therefore denied as moot. Larsons motion for sanctions is also denied. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
6

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-2

Page: 1 of 5

(7 of 11)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Office of the Clerk 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings Judgment This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case. Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached decision because all of the dates described below run from that date, not from the date you receive this notice. Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2) The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper. Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1) Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3) (1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing): A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist: A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision; A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not addressed in the opinion. Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc) A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist:

B.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-2

Page: 2 of 5

(8 of 11)

Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Courts decisions; or The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.

(2)

Deadlines for Filing: A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate. See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the due date). An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2. Statement of Counsel A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsels judgment, one or more of the situations described in the purpose section above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly. Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)) The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text. The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panels decision being challenged. An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length limitations as the petition. If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.

(3)

(4)

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

Case: 11-55863

01/10/2013

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-2

Page: 3 of 5

(9 of 11)

The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms. You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise.

Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1) The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms. Attorneys Fees Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees applications. All relevant forms are available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms or by telephoning (415) 355-7806. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at www.supremecourt.gov Counsel Listing in Published Opinions Please check counsel listing on the attached decision. If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in writing within 10 days to: West Publishing Company; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526; St. Paul, MN 55164-0526 (Attn: Kathy Blesener, Senior Editor); and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF system by using File Correspondence to Court, or if you are an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the Court one copy of the letter.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

Case: 11-55863 01/10/2013 ID: 8468916 DktEntry: 70-2 Page: 4 of 5 (10 of 11) Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BILL OF COSTS
Note: If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs. v. The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against: 9th Cir. No.

Cost Taxable under FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. 1920, 9th Cir. R. 39-1

REQUESTED Each Column Must Be Completed

ALLOWED To Be Completed by the Clerk

No. of Docs.

Pages per Doc.

Cost per Page* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

TOTAL COST

No. of Docs.

Pages per Doc. $ $ $ $ $

Cost per Page* $ $ $ $ $

TOTAL COST

Excerpt of Record Opening Brief Answering Brief Reply Brief Other**

TOTAL:

TOTAL: $

* Costs per page may not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. ** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be considered. Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.

Continue to next page.

Case: 11-55863 01/10/2013 Form 10. Bill of Costs - Continued I,

ID: 8468916

DktEntry: 70-2

Page: 5 of 5

(11 of 11)

, swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed

were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed. Signature ("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically) Date Name of Counsel: Attorney for:

(To Be Completed by the Clerk) Date Costs are taxed in the amount of $ Clerk of Court By: , Deputy Clerk