Cairns v. Franklin Mint Company - Mark Roesler

More documents

Recommendations

Info

proposed statute, motion to amend, effective date, declarations, addressing,motivation, effectiveCORE CONCEPTS -Hide ConceptsTorts : DamagesGovernments & Legislation : Legislation : Effect & OperationSee Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1(n).Civil Procedure : Pleading & Practice : Pleadings : Amended PleadingsAlthough leave to amend should be freely granted, where the proposedamendment would be futile a motion to amend may be denied.Governments & Legislation : Legislation : Construction & InterpretationIn determining the meaning of a statutory provision, the court must firstlook to the plain language of the statute.Governments & Legislation : Legislation : Construction & InterpretationEven if a court determines that the plain meaning of the statute is clear, itmay still inquire as to whether the literal meaning of a statute comportswith its purpose. If the court determines that a literal reading will result inan absurd result, then intent will prevail over the letter, and the letter will,if possible, be read so to conform to the spirit of the act.Governments & Legislation : Legislation : Construction & InterpretationIn order to ascertain the intent of the legislature, the court may look atthe history of the statute, committee reports, and staff bill reports.Governments & Legislation : Legislation : Construction & InterpretationCalifornia courts give substantial weight to the deletion of a provisionduring the drafting stage. The fact that the Legislature specificallyconsidered and rejected a provision is most persuasive to the conclusionthat the act should not be construed to include the omitted provision.Civil Procedure : Preclusion & Effect of Judgments : Law of the Case DoctrineThe law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to aid in theefficient operation of court affairs. Under the doctrine, a court is generallyprecluded from reconsidering an issue previously decided by the samecourt, or a higher court in the identical case. For the doctrine to apply theissue in question must have been decided explicitly or by necessaryimplication in the previous disposition. A significant corollary to thedoctrine is that dicta have no preclusive effect.COUNSEL: For DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES MEMORIAL FUND, a charitabletrust, HONORABLE FRANCES RUTH SHAND KYDD, LADY ELIZABETH SARAHLAVINIA MCCORQUODALE, RIGHT REVEREND AND RIGHT HONORABLERICHARD JOHN CAREW CHARTRES, BISHOP OF LONDON, Executors of theEstate of Diana, Princess of Wales, SIMON CAIRNS, Lord, JOHN EVERSLEY,MICHAEL GIBBINS, LVO, F.C.A., JP, ANTHONY JULIUS, SARAH
MCCORQUODALE, Lady, JILL PITKEATHLEY OBE, Baroness, JOHNREIZENSTEIN, CHRISTOPHER SPENCE MBE, NALINI VARMA, trustees of theDiana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, A Charitable trust, plaintiffs: ShariMulrooney Wollman, Mark S Lee, Seth A Gold, Alison Spear Ullendorff, ManattPhelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA. Cara R. Burns, Gradstein Luskin & VanDalsem, Los Angeles, CA.For DIANA PRINCESS WALES MEMORIAL FUND (NO 1) LIMITED, plaintiff: ShariMulrooney Wollman, Mark S Lee, Seth A Gold, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LosAngeles, CA. Cara R. Burns, Gradstein Luskin & Van Dalsem, Los Angeles, CA.For FRANKLIN MINT COMPANY, a Delaware Partnership, ROLL INTERNATIONALCORPORATION, INC, a Delaware corporation, STEWART RESNICK, anindividual, LYNDA RESNICK, an individual, defendants: Robert A Meyer,Douglas E Mirell, Daniel J Friedman, Lisa Lyn Horlick, Loeb & Loeb, LosAngeles, CA. Robert N Treiman, Loeb & Loeb, Los Angeles, CA.JUDGES: Richard A. Paez, United States Circuit Judge By Designation.OPINIONBY: Richard A. PaezOPINION: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REINSTATERIGHT OF PUBLICITY CLAIM AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONI.IntroductionThis action was originally assigned to Judge Richard A. Paez. Recently,however, with the appointment of Judge Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals, this case was randomly reassigned to Judge Florence Marie Cooper.While this case was pending before Judge Paez, the plaintiffs filed a Motion toReinstate Right to Publicity Claim and for Preliminary Injunction. Judge Paezheard that motion on March 20, 2000, and at the conclusion of the hearingsubmitted the matter for decision. On May 2, 2000, Judge Paez entered anorder summarily denying plaintiffs' motion but indicated that he would file amore detailed memorandum explaining the basis for his ruling. Thus, JudgePaez now sets forth the reasons why plaintiffs' motion to reinstate and forpreliminary injunction were properly denied.At the outset, the Court notes that when it dismissed plaintiffs' [*2] right ofpublicity claim and denied the request for a preliminary injunction on October16, 1999, it did so with a detailed summary of plaintiffs' factual allegations andlegal claims. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (C.D. Cal. 1998).No useful purpose would be served to repeat that summary here. We simplynote, to place plaintiffs' present motion in context, that plaintiffs seek damagesfor defendants alleged wrongful use of the late Princess Diana's name andlikeness on commemorative items such as plates, jewelry and dolls, and inmarketing such items to the general public.One of the claims plaintiffs alleged, and the one dismissed by the court, wasthat defendants' use of the late Princess Diana's likeness violated the
Page 1: 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8739, *LORD S
Page 5 and 6: subsection (n) of section 3344.1 is
Page 7 and 8: On January 20, 1999, Senator John B
Page 9 and 10: eaching right of action - "if any o
Page 11: As the Ninth Circuit panel cites no

Cairns v. Franklin Mint Company - Mark Roesler

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?