Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ECF Lee v Marvel Appellant SLMI Brief 6-9-11

ECF Lee v Marvel Appellant SLMI Brief 6-9-11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,255 |Likes:
Published by Ray Dowd
copyright ownership, copyright law, standing, real party in interest, copyrights and bankruptcy, licensing litigation, copyright litigation, stan lee, marvel comics, stan lee media inc
copyright ownership, copyright law, standing, real party in interest, copyrights and bankruptcy, licensing litigation, copyright litigation, stan lee, marvel comics, stan lee media inc

More info:

Published by: Ray Dowd on Jun 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/13/2011

pdf

text

original

 
11-831
In the
United States Court of Appeals
 For the Second Circuit
O
STAN LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
STAN LEE MEDIA, INC.,
 Movant-Appellant,
– v. –MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. and MARVEL CHARACTERS, INC.,
 Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX FORMOVANT-APPELLANT
D
UNNINGTON
B
ARTHOLOW
&
 
M
ILLER
,
 
LLP
 Attorneys for Movant-Appellant 
1359 Broadway, Suite 600New York, New York 10018(212) 682-8811
APPELLATE INNOVATIONS(914) 948-2240
5833
 
i
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 26.1OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Movant-Appellant in this action, Stan Lee Media Inc., an administratively-dissolvedColorado corporation (“SLMI”), states that it does not have a corporate parentand there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of SLMI stock.
 
ii
 
Table of ContentsPage
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................ 1II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ................................................................. 1III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................... 4IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 12A. Lee v. Marvel (2002-2005) ............................................................... 12B. On January 8, 2007, Lee Commenced An Ownership RightsCase In California, After Which Various Shareholders AttemptTo Bring Derivative Lawsuits In SLMI's Name ............................... 13C. Judge Crotty Dismisses The First New York DerivativeLawsuit Because Putative Plaintiff's Counsel Was NotAuthorized To Represent SLMI ....................................................... 15D. Judge Crotty Dismisses The Second New York DerivativeLawsuit Because Putative Derivative Plaintiffs Had NoStanding And Did Not Adequately Represent SLMI ....................... 15E. The Colorado Court of Appeals Authorizes A New Board ForSLMI, And The California Court Lifts The Stay In TheCalifornia Litigation ......................................................................... 16F. SLMI's Intervention Into
 Lee v. Marvel
........................................... 19G. The California Case Is Stayed Again Pending DeterminationOf This Appeal .................................................................................. 21V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................ 23VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 26VII. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 30A. Standard of Review .......................................................................... 30B. Discussion of Issues ......................................................................... 321. The District Court Erred By Declining To Vacate Its JudgmentPursuant To Rule 60 Because The Subject Matter of 
 Lee v. Marvel
 Was Property Of SLMI's Bankruptcy Estate And, In Addition,Lee's Misconduct, SLMI's Changed Circumstances And TheAvoidance Of A Grave Injustice To 1,800 ShareholdersNecessitates Rule 60 Relief ............................................................. 32

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->