Hacienda Records, L.P. v. Ruben Ramos, et a
16-41180
| 5th Cir. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Multiple Tejano artists (Guanajuato, Guerrero, Serrata, Ramos) and Hacienda Records were involved in long-running disputes over copyright ownership and revenue, with various prior suits between the same parties.
- Guanajuato, Guerrero, and Serrata executed both assignments and special powers of attorney giving their attorney, David Showalter, broad and exclusive rights to enforce and administer rights and revenues in their "Works." Ramos executed an assignment but not the special power of attorney.
- Showalter sent a January 2014 demand letter to Hacienda; Hacienda responded by seeking declaratory relief about copyright ownership. Counterclaims and cross-claims followed; the district court consolidated related issues and judicially noticed records from a parallel proceeding (Guajardo).
- The district court dismissed Guanajuato, Guerrero, and Serrata for lack of standing, concluding their prior transfers left Showalter exclusively able to enforce rights; the court relied on reasoning adopted in Guajardo but did not apply collateral estoppel because Guajardo had not yet been reduced to final judgment at that time.
- Ramos asserted state-law contract claims based on a 1985 recording agreement; the district court granted summary judgment for Hacienda after excluding Ramos’ January 9, 2015 declaration under the sham-affidavit doctrine and finding no competent evidence of breach.
- The district court awarded Hacienda prevailing-party status and fees for the contract claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing, the summary judgment against Ramos, and the fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guanajuato, Guerrero, Serrata had standing despite prior transfers | Assignments/special POAs did not transfer accrued copyright claims; Prather requires specific language to transfer past copyright causes of action | Transfers (especially the special POAs granting "exclusive" enforcement) plainly deprived assignors of the right to sue | Court held transfers (assignment + special POA) were sufficiently broad; dismissals for lack of standing affirmed |
| Whether collateral estoppel barred relitigation based on Guajardo decision | Appellants contended this action should not be precluded because the prior ruling was not final when district court acted | Hacienda argued the identical issue had been litigated in Guajardo and should preclude relitigation | Court avoided deciding preclusion (Guajardo not final at dismissal time) but agreed with Guajardo reasoning; affirmed dismissals on the merits |
| Whether district court erred excluding Ramos’ declaration under sham-affidavit rule and granting summary judgment on breach | Ramos argued his declaration was competent (executed before deposition) and consistent with testimony, creating disputed fact on payment/breach | Hacienda argued Ramos’ declaration contradicted his deposition and prior interrogatory responses and the court properly excluded it; without it Ramos had no competent evidence of breach | Court held the sham-affidavit principle applies to inconsistent sworn statements regardless of sequence; exclusion proper and summary judgment for Hacienda affirmed |
| Whether Hacienda was the prevailing party entitled to fees for contract claims | Appellants argued they prevailed on voluntarily dismissed works and obtained an accounting, so were prevailing parties on parts of the case | Hacienda argued it obtained final judgment on the works considered and Texas law mandates fees to prevailing party in contract actions | Court held final judgment for Hacienda made it the prevailing party; award of fees and costs affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 410 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1969) (assignment language must explicitly transfer accrued copyright causes of action)
- In re Isbell Records, Inc., 586 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation governs whether assignment divests assignor of infringement claims)
- Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1986) (partial/interlocutory rulings generally lack collateral-estoppel effect)
- RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost, 44 F.3d 1284 (5th Cir. 1995) (elements and federal-law rubric for collateral estoppel)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing-party status analysis)
- Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2002) (Texas law governs fee awards for state-law contract claims)