Hendricks & Lewis Pllc v. George Clinton
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16863
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Clinton owes Hendricks & Lewis (H&L) approximately $1.68 million in judgments plus additional fees/costs; H&L obtained a judgment in 2010-2010 and pursued collection in multiple jurisdictions.
- H&L sought to satisfy its judgments by selling or disposing of the Funkadelic master sound recordings licensed to Warner Bros.; Clinton challenged the scope of enforcement.
- The four Masters at issue—“Hardcore Jollies,” “One Nation Under a Groove,” “Uncle Jam Wants You,” and “The Electric Spanking of War Babies”—were originally owned by Warner Bros. as works made for hire; Clinton later asserted ownership rights.
- The district court appointed a receiver under Washington law to manage or sell the Masters to maximize value for the judgment creditor, with pre-approval required for any sale.
- Clinton argued § 201(e) of the Copyright Act shielded his ownership from execution and raised related termination-right arguments; the court and now the Ninth Circuit held copyrights are subject to execution and § 201(e) does not bar collection when there have been voluntary transfers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether copyrights are subject to execution to satisfy a judgment | Clinton; §201(e) protects authors from involuntary transfer | H&L; copyrights are alienable and subject to execution under Johnson rule | Yes; copyrights subject to execution under Washington law; §201(e) does not bar execution where transfers occurred |
| Whether §201(e) protects Clinton from execution despite voluntary transfers | Clinton; §201(e) preserves ownership if not voluntarily transferred | H&L; voluntary transfers defeat §201(e) protection | No; §201(e) does not apply where ownership was voluntarily transferred; protection rejected |
| Whether appointing a receiver to manage/sale the Masters was an abuse of discretion | Clinton; receivership was overbroad/insufficient factual findings | H&L's judgments and need to satisfy debts justify receiver; Washington law supports relief | Not an abuse of discretion; district court balanced equities and determined a receiver was necessary |
| Whether Clinton can raise fraud on the court and judicial estoppel for the first time on appeal | Clinton; H&L engaged in fraud and inconsistent positions | H&L outcomes; no clear inconsistent positions; no fraud | Meritless; not shown to have harmed the judicial process |
Key Cases Cited
- Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010) (domain names may be subject to execution when no federal statute governs)
- Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1881) (patent/copyright execution principles; intangible property subject to execution)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (S. Ct. 2001) (judicial estoppel factors not a fixed formula)
- Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1984) (historic kinship between patent and copyright law; guidance where law is unsettled)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (S. Ct. 1984) (copyrights; works made for hire discussion)