HOLDINGS: [1]-Because the corporation co-owned the copyrights at issue at the time of the alleged infringement, the explicit cooperation of counter-defendants strongly militated in favor of a finding that counter-defendants received permission to use those copyrights from a co-owner; [2]-Defendants failed to state a claim as to their copyright infringement counterclaim because the estate was only a co-owner of the copyrights at issue, and so it was barred from bringing a copyright infringement action against another co-owner, and one of the counter-defendants, as co-owner of the works, had the independent right to use or license the use of the copyright; [3]-The court elected to relinquish jurisdiction over the parties’ eight remaining claims, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c), because, inter alia, the great majority of the remaining claims arose under California law. Appellant was represented by a business attorney.
Outcome
Copyright infringement claim dismissed. Remaining claims remanded. Motion for sanctions denied. Court declined to adopt report and recommendation.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The court found that it had jurisdiction over an employer’s declaratory judgment claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332, because the parties were completely diverse and the employee sought approximately $2,000,000 in damages; [2]-It was for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide whether the employee waived his arbitration rights under the FAA; [3]-The employee’s nearly year-long litigation conduct in the case in support of non-statutory interference claims was entirely inconsistent with his right to arbitrate those claims under the parties’ arbitration clause; [4]-Because the court found that the employee waived his arbitration rights, the employer was under no duty to participate in the arbitration. The employer therefore would suffer irreparable harm if forced to participate in the arbitration.
Outcome
Plaintiffs’ motion was granted. The court enjoined arbitration from proceeding.
