Aaron Sperske v. Ariel Rosenberg
2:12-cv-07034
C.D. Cal.Jul 24, 2013Background
- Aaron Sperske was drummer for Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti until ousted May 15, 2012; band (Rosenberg, Koh, Gilmore) continued and released Mature Themes (2012).
- Sperske sued asserting: (1) 25% co‑ownership of copyrights in 12 compositions on Mature Themes; (2) partnership under California Uniform Partnership Act; (3) accounting of partnership assets/proceeds; (4) breach of fiduciary duty.
- Court earlier entered default judgment against the partnership entity Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti; Sperske later moved for summary judgment against the three individual defendants.
- Defendants filed answers but did not oppose the summary judgment motion; counsel withdrew; however evidentiary submissions from defendants contested key facts (authorship, management control).
- Disputes: whether band membership constituted a partnership (management participation, profit sharing vs. wages), whether Sperske is co‑author/co‑owner of the 12 songs, and how band revenues ($219,498) relate to any copyright or partnership shares.
- Court denied Sperske’s summary judgment motion on all counts and vacated the prior default judgment against the partnership because the earlier default was inconsistent with the evidentiary record and the court’s clear‑error determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of partnership | Sperske: oral partnership — contributed services, shared profits; thus partner rights and duties. | Defendants: band leader (Rosenberg) controlled management; payments may be wages not profit distributions; many other members not treated as partners. | Denied — genuine issues of material fact on management participation and profit characterization preclude summary judgment. |
| Copyright co‑ownership (authorship) | Sperske: contributed to 12 compositions; Copyright Office certificate lists him as co‑author; seeks 25% ownership. | Defendants: Rosenberg asserts he wrote majority; certificate filed after suit by plaintiff’s counsel is suspect; disputes over extent of Sperske’s contributions. | Denied — genuine factual disputes over authorship and ownership. |
| Accounting for proceeds attributed to copyrights | Sperske: band earned $219,498 since his ouster; seeks share based on assumed 25% copyright interest. | Defendants: revenue figure mixes touring/merchandise; plaintiff fails to show what portion derives from copyright and thus how to apportion. | Denied — factual questions remain about which revenues derive from copyrights and appropriate allocation. |
| Validity of prior default judgment against partnership | Sperske: default judgment stands and supports relief against partnership. | Defendants: record evidence undermines partner status and prior default; counsel withdrawal and later filings raise questions. | Court vacated the earlier default judgment as inconsistent with the evidentiary record and because the court committed clear error in light of the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; materiality and genuine dispute)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party when versions conflict)
- S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (copyright registration is prima facie evidence of validity but can be rebutted)
- Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 (name‑band members may be employees rather than partners)
- Kingvision Pay‑Per‑View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (courts may act sua sponte to adjust default judgments)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (standard for reconsideration/relief from judgment)