Paula Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
695 F.3d 946
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- In 2009, Petrella filed suit for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and accounting against MGM entities alleging rights in the book and two screenplays underlying Raging Bull.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on laches and denied sanctions and attorney’s fees; the court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal.
- The works at issue are the 1963 screenplay (registered 1963; Petrella listed as sole author but noted collaboration with LaMotta), the 1970 book (registered with Peter Savage as author along with LaMotta and Carter), and the 1973 screenplay (Petrella sole author; described as screenplay form of the book).
- In 1976, F. Petrella and LaMotta assigned to Chartoff-Winkler all rights in the book and in the 1963 and 1973 screenplays, with some reservation for the book’s authors.
- United Artists acquired film rights to Raging Bull in 1978; film copyright registered around 1980; Petrella died in 1981, with renewal rights passing to her heirs.
- Petrella learned of Stewart v. Abend in 1990 and filed a renewal for the 1963 screenplay in 1991; after years of correspondence, she filed the 2009 lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars the copyright claim | Petrella asserts no misuse of diligence; delay tied to equitable considerations. | Defendants contend long, unreasonable delay prejudiced them and barred claims. | Yes; copyright claim barred by laches. |
| Whether laches bars unjust enrichment and accounting claims | Unjust enrichment claims hinge on co-ownership; delay should not bar this remedy. | Laches applies to equitable remedies, including accounting. | Yes; laches bars unjust enrichment and accounting. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions | Petrella had a colorable argument to apply laches; sanctions inappropriate. | Sanctions warranted for frivolous filing; but laches defense was reasonably contested. | No; district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 | Fees should be awarded given the merits and behavior of the defense. | Discretionary denial appropriate to avoid chilling future claims; not an abuse here. | No; district court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (establishes laches standard and prejudice requirements in copyright)
- Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2006) (delay in filing can be prejudicial where investments occurred)
- Jackson v. Axton, 25 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1994) (prejudice shown by broad investment and reliance on ownership)
- Grand Canyon Trust v. Tucson Electric Power Co., 391 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004) (illustrates when delay can benefit defendant; distinguishes from this case)
- Haas v. Leo Feist, Inc., 234 F.1d 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) (judge Hand’s equitable delay analysis in copyright)
- Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1990) (renewal rights and statutorily conferred successors after author’s death)