Stroud Productions & Enterprises, Inc. v. Castle Rock Entertainment Inc.
669 F. App'x 898
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Two related appeals from orders entered in Brown v. Stroud and Stroud Prods. v. Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc.; appellants are Scarlett P. Stroud (SPS) as Executrix for Andrew B. Stroud’s estate and Stroud Productions and Enterprises, Inc.
- District court possessed diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for the primary action and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over copyright counterclaims; supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) covered related claims.
- Appellants challenged substitution of SPS as a party, asserting substitution was premature because she had not yet been appointed estate representative when substituted.
- Appellants also challenged personal jurisdiction over SPS, arguing improper service of the motion to substitute; service was effected under New York C.P.L.R. § 308(4) (affixing to door plus first-class mail) after multiple attempted personal services.
- District court denied appellants’ motion for enlargement of time, finding bad faith and misconduct by appellants and counsel; appellants asserted various procedural errors and abuses of discretion.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed: it upheld subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, found any premature substitution harmless (and partially corrected by reconsideration), and held the denial of enlargement was not an abuse of discretion given the bad-faith finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stroud) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution of SPS was premature | Substitution occurred before SPS was appointed estate representative, so substitution invalid | Substitution corresponded with subsequent appointment; any premature substitution was harmless and later addressed by reconsideration | Court: Any error was harmless; substitution effectively validated and partially corrected on reconsideration |
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction | (Appellants challenged jurisdiction) | District court had diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction for copyright counterclaims, plus supplemental jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction proper under §§ 1332, 1331, and 1367(a) |
| Whether court had personal jurisdiction over SPS via service | Service was improper because motion to substitute was not personally served on SPS | Service complied with New York CPLR § 308(4) after due diligence (multiple attempts, inquiries with doorman/superintendent) | Court: Service proper under § 308(4); personal jurisdiction valid |
| Whether denial of enlargement of time was an abuse of discretion | Appellants contended district court abused discretion in denying more time | District court found bad faith, misconduct, docket management and prejudice to others justified denial | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion given not‑clearly‑erroneous bad‑faith finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (subsequent events doctrine can validate a prematurely filed appeal)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for abuse of discretion in denying extensions and sanctions)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. White, 972 N.Y.S.2d 664 (App. Div. 2013) (examples of due diligence for substituted service under CPLR § 308)
- Colonial Nat’l Bank, U.S.A. v. Jacobs, 727 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Civ. Ct. 2000) (doorman at building entrance is generally not the resident’s "actual dwelling" for service purposes)