DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
938 F. Supp. 2d 941
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- DC sued Pacific Pictures, IP Worldwide, Mark Peary, Jean Peavy, Joanne Siegel, and Laura Siegel Larson, asserting six claims including state-law tortious interference and unfair competition; the court had already ruled on DC’s first and third declaratory-relief claims, now on appeal.
- Shuster termination: 1992 agreement with Shuster’s siblings; 1998 copyright act amendment enabling termination by heirs; 2001 and 2003 Pacific Pictures agreements; 2003 Toberoff involvement; 2012 order deemed the 1992 agreement a revocation and regrant—on appeal.
- Siegel termination: 1997 notices by Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson; 2001–2002 negotiations/draft terms with DC; 2002 IP Worldwide involvement; 2003 termination notices by Siegels.
- Siegel litigation: Toberoff filed suit in 2004 to validate Siegel termination; Larson v. Warner Bros. later held the October 19, 2001 letter constituted a binding agreement; 2013 order confirmed enforceability of that agreement.
- This action: DC’s six claims filed May 14, 2010; Defendants moved for summary judgment on claims 4 and 5 and cross-moved on claim 6; the court granted 4th and 5th, denied 6th without prejudice pending appeal.
- Legal standards: California tolling and accrual principles (continuing-wrong, continuous accrual, and discovery rule) govern whether the 2-year and 4-year statutes of limitations bar the tortious-interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4th claim is time-barred | DC argues continuing-wrong tolling applies to a series of breaches. | Defendants contend accrual occurred by 2001–2003, suit is time-barred. | Grant summary judgment; 4th claim barred by the statute of limitations. |
| Whether the 5th claim is time-barred | DC argues continuing-wrong or discovery-rule tolling keeps claim viable. | Defendants maintain accrual and notice times foreclose timely filing. | Grant summary judgment; 5th claim barred by the statute of limitations. |
| Whether continuing-wrong or continuous-accrual tolling applies to intentional interference claims | DC relies on continuing-wrong theories to toll accrual. | Defendants argue these tolling theories do not apply to tortious interference here. | Neither continuing-wrong nor continuous-accrual tolling applies to these interference claims. |
| Whether DC's 6th claim is moot/solution pending appeal | 6th claim seeks declarations on Toberoff-Siegel/Shuster agreements; tied to first/third claims. | 6th is moot where relief is duplicative and subject to ongoing appeal; wind-down pending Ninth Circuit resolution. | Denial of 6th without prejudice pending resolution of the related appeal; partially moot as to Toberoff dealings with Shusters. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (discusses tolling and accrual; informs approach to continuing-wrong)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (discovery rule and when plaintiff suspects wrongdoing)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (discovers rule; tolling standards for contract-based claims)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (discovery sufficiency standard for accrual)
- Boon Rawd Trading Int’l v. Paleewong Trading Co., Inc., 688 F.Supp.2d 940 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (commentary on continuing-tort doctrine and interference claims)