Lee v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.
765 F. Supp. 2d 440
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- SLMI moved to vacate two pre-existing orders, seek intervention, and substitute as plaintiff to file an amended complaint relating back to 2002, all within a broader dispute over Marvel character rights.
- Lee created or co-created major Marvel characters and later had a working relationship with Marvel; SLE/Lee Employment Agreement in 1998 and its termination in 2001 are central to the dispute.
- Prior litigation included the January 17, 2005 partial grant/denial of summary judgment, the April 27, 2005 dismissal with prejudice, and related cases in California and Colorado across multiple venues.
- Colorado proceedings post-2007 included special master oversight, a 2008 removal of directors, and a 2008-2010 sequence culminating in a 2010 Colorado Court of Appeals decision and a 2010 Supreme Court denial of certiorari.
- Abadin v. Marvel (derivative action) and related cases in this district were repeatedly dismissed or denied leave to amend; Crotty rejected SLMI’s derivative/standing theories and time-barred claims.
- Lee’s and Marvel’s settlement resulted in a dismissal with prejudice, and the instant motion seeks to relitigate or undo that resolution by importing SLMI’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper for vacating the orders | SLMI contends extraordinary circumstances justify relief. | Lee/Marvel argue delays and lack of extraordinary circumstances defeat relief. | No; motions under Rule 60(b) denied. |
| Whether SLMI may intervene/realign as plaintiff under Rule 19/17 | SLMI should be a real party in interest and substitute as plaintiff. | Substitution would alter original claims; not proper under Rule 17(a) or Rule 19(a). | Denied; intervention and substitution improper. |
| Whether SLMI’s proposed amended complaint relates back under Rule 15(c) | Amendment should relate back to Lee’s original complaint. | Claims differ; new plaintiffs/claims do not arise from same transaction; no mistake. | Denied; relation back not satisfied. |
| Whether SLMI’s claims are barred by res judicata or statutes of limitations | Derivations from SLMI should toll limitations. | Crotty’s rulings and time-bar doctrines apply; substantial delay unjustified. | Yes; barred. |
| Whether unsealing documents is warranted | Documents are relevant to potential future claims. | Material was produced; motion to unseal is improper collateral maneuver. | Denied; motion to unseal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Herbert, 341 F.3d 186 (2d Cir.2003) (void-for-jurisdiction standard; strict reading of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lee v. Marvel Entm’t, Inc. (Abadin derivative action), 2010 WL 1257519 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (Judge Crotty on leave to amend and time-bar issues; not official reporter; included for context (Abadin v. Marvel Entm’t, Inc.))
- Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11 (2d Cir.1997) (Rule 17/15(c) relation back considerations and substitute plaintiffs)
- Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., 2006 WL 2792689 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (relation back of new plaintiffs; focus on same transaction and notice)
- Fair Hous. in Huntington Cty. v. Town of Huntington, 2010 WL 2730757 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (Rule 19 applicability to nonparties; complete relief criterion)
- Amalgamated Sugar Co., LLC v. NL Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 634 (2d Cir.1987) (shareholder suit as res judicata when adequately represented)
- Ratner v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 6 F.R.D. 618 (S.D.N.Y.1942) (res judicata for derivative actions)