673 F.3d 1267
9th Cir.2012Background
- Contract between Bagdasarian Productions/Janice Karman and Fox granting rights to Alvin properties; agreement classifies services as work-for-hire and assigns copyright to Fox.
- Forum selection and California law govern disputes; dispute resolution via a general non-jury referee under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 638 is required.
- Fox moved to stay proceedings and refer the dispute to a referee; district court granted the motion.
- Plaintiffs appealed interlocutorily challenging the Section 638 reference; the appeal seeks immediate appellate review.
- The Squeakquel screenplay-related disputes include ownership, copyright, accounting, and contractual rights; district court stayed pending referee decision.
- Question presented: whether the stay/referral order is immediately appealable as a final or collateral-order ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay/referral order is a final decision under §1291 | Plaintiffs: order effectively ends court action | Fox/ district court: not final; remains reviewable | Not final; appeal premature under §1291 |
| Whether the order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Plaintiffs: collateral-order review available | Fox: doctrine not satisfied | Collateral order doctrine not met; not immediately appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2004) (finality/appeal rights in interlocutory matters emphasized)
- Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1983) (stay orders generally not final but may be appealable in narrow circumstances)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court 1949) (finality and appealability standards for district court decisions)
- Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 635 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 2011) (FAA/arbitration review implications; relevance to 638 references discussed)
- Truckstop.net, LLC v. Sprint Corp., 547 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (collateral-order doctrine narrowly construed; not satisfied here)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (Supreme Court 1982) (collateral-order doctrine elements requirement)