Attrеll Cordes, a successful singer and songwriter who performs with his brother
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
David, Paul and Michael Batiste (collectively, the Batistes) are three brothers who, while performing together as a group known as “David Batiste & the Gladiators,” wrote a musical composition called “Funky Soul” in 1968. The Batistes performed “Funky Soul” in New Orleans and recorded the song in 1970 with the assistance of Isaac Bolden, a local music publisher and record producer.
David Batiste, the eldest brother and leader and manager of the group, entered into two written contracts with Bolden: (1) a Songwriter’s Contract governing rights to the “Funky Soul” musical composition, and (2) an Artist Contract governing rights to the “Funky Soul” physical master tape and sound recording. Under the Songwriter’s Contract, David Batiste warranted that the “Funky Soul” musical composition was his “sole, exclusive and original work” and transferred that composition, including the title, words, music, and the exclusive right to secure cоpyright, to Bolden. Under the Artist Contract, David Batiste transferred to Bolden all rights to the physical master tape and the sound recording of “Funky Soul” embodied thereon, including the “exclusive, unlimited and perpetual right ... to manufacture, advertise, sell, lease, license or otherwise use or dispose of, in any or all fields of use, by any method now or hereafter known, throughout the world, records embodying the performances.”
Shortly after the recording session for “Funky Soul,” Bolden obtained a certificate of copyright registration for the musical composition identifying David Batiste as its sole writer. Bolden authorized the manufacture and release of two records containing “Funky Soul” in 1970, but neither record was a commercial success.
Attrell Cordes and his brother perform together in the highly successful musical group “P.M. Dawn.” In 1992, Cordes purchased a copy of the “Funky Soul” record and decided to sample it for use in a song of his own entitled “So On and So On” (“So On”). Cordes recorded a six and one-half second portion of “Funky Soul” from the record he purchased and used digital technology to modify the recording. Cordes used this digital sample in his song “So On” that was included on “the Bliss Album,” which Island Records, Inc.
The liner notes accompanying “the Bliss Album” credit “D. Batiste” as a co-writer of “So On” and state that “ ‘Funky Soul’ performed by David Batiste & The Gladiators [is] used under license by Isaac Bol-den.” The Batistes admit that they learned that a portion of “Funky Soul” was used in “So On” no later than July 1993, and that they prepared and submitted an application to register as co-writers of “So On” with Broadcast Music, Inc., a well-known performing rights society.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Batistes filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District оf Louisiana on March 10, 1995, alleging that Island Records, Gee Street, MCA, Cordes, Bolden, and Wade Featherstone violated federal copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-603; the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.' § 1125; the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Law, La. Rev. Stat. ANN. §§ 51:1401-1419 (LUTPL), and Louisiana state laws regarding conversion and misappropriation. In addition, the Batistes allege in their complaint that Bolden breached his fiduciary duty and contractual obligation by failing to account for income that he has received from the sale or distribution of records containing “Funky Soul” and by participating in the misappropriation of the Batistes’ property and infringement of their copyrights. The Batistes seek in-junctive and declaratory relief, an accounting of all amounts received from transactions relating to “the Bliss Album” and “Funky Soul,” and damages.
Wade Featherstone filed a motion on October 15, 1996 to dismiss the Ba-tistes’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Featherstone asserted that he is a citizen and resident of England and lacked sufficient jurisdictional contacts with the state of Louisiana. Island Records, MCA, Gee Street, and Cordes (collectively, defendants) filed a motion on December 6, 1996 to dismiss the Batistes’ claims of copyright infringement for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Batistes could not demonstrate that they had obtained or applied to obtain a valid copyright registration for “Funky Soul.”
The district court granted defendants summary judgment on all of David Batiste’s claims, and on all of Paul and Michael Batiste’s claims except conversion and misappropriation.
III. DISCUSSION
The Batistes argue on appeal that the district court erroneously granted defendants summary judgment on their copyright infringement, Lanham Act,
A. Copyright Infringement
The Batistes argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their copyright infringement claims because defendants’ use of “Funky Soul” infringed the “Funky Soul” copyright and was not authorized by the 1970 Songwriter’s and Artist Contracts or the three contracts that Bolden entered into in 1993. The Batistes contend that the Songwriter’s and Artist Contracts between David Batiste and Bolden are invalid because David Batiste does not remember signing them and the contracts are “suspect enough to raise a factual issue.” Furthermore, the Batistes argue that these contracts did not anticipate or authorize the digital sampling method at issue, and that the contracts cannot apply to Paul and Michael Batiste because they were minors at the time and did not authorize David Batiste to negotiate on their behalf.
The Batistes allege that even if the 1970 contracts did allow Bolden to license the use of a digital sample of “Funky Soul” to defendants, the contracts that Bolden executed in 1993 do not authorize defendants’ use. Specifically, the Batistes claim that either (1) “So On” is a “derivative work,” and the 1993 contracts serve only to authorize and share profits from the new material Cordes added to the song, not the preexisting work; or (2) the contracts between Bolden and Gee Street/MCA purport to render “So On” a “joint work,” a characterization that would effectively merge Cordes’s contribution with Bolden’s rights in “Funky Soul,” and that such a characterization under the “Twelfth Street Rag” doctrine
The only question that we fece regarding the Batistes’ copyright claims is whether the Batistes have successfully demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact that the multiple contracts among the parties are insufficient to authorize defendants’ use of a digital sample of “Funky Soul” in their song “So On.” After carefully examining the contracts between David Batiste and Bolden and the contracts between Bolden and Gee Street/MCA, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that there is no such issue of material fact and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on these claims.
The Batistes point to no evidence supporting their allegation that the 1970 contracts are invalid or otherwise “suspect,” and David Batiste’s inability to remember signing them is not sufficient to raise a material issue as to the validity of the agreements. See Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Nelstad Material Corp.,
We also find no merit in the Ba-tistes’ arguments that the 1993 contracts between Bolden and Gee Street/MCA are invalid because they purport to create a “joint work.” The contracts recognize that Bolden, as the owner of the “So On” copyright, retains his copyright therein. See Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos.,
B. Lanham Act
The Batistes argue that the district court erroneously .granted summary judgment on their claims that defendants “mutilate[d]” “Funky Soul” and that this “abuse” of their work amounts to “reverse passing off’ in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
In Gilliam, the Second Circuit considered a claim by a group of authors and performers known as “Monty Python” seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) from broadcasting edited versions of three of their programs. See
Even if we were to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and determine that thе “manipulation” that “Funky Soul” suffered is sufficient to state a cause of action under the Lanham Act, we still must conclude that summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper because the Batistes have failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of likelihood of confusion. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) (prohibiting misleading representations of fact which are likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception); 3 NimmeR at § 8D.04[A][2] (stating that, for a plaintiff to prevail on such a manipulation claim, “it must invoke the appropriate elements for relief under the Lanham Act, rather than simply serving as a back-door method for reviving failed copyright claims”) (footnote omitted). The Batistes point to no evidеnce in the record demonstrating that consumers were confused or deceived by either the use of a digital sample of “Funky Soul” in “So On” or the attribution to “David Batiste & The Gladiators” as a co-author of “So On.” The Batistes’ claim that Paul and Michael Batiste were improperly excluded from the liner notes accompanying the album also fails to suggest that consumers were confused, especially because the liner notes do credit the name of the band in which both Paul and Michael Batiste performed. Finding no evidence of a genuine issue of consumer confusion, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the Batistes’ Lanham Act claims.
C. State-Law Claims
The Batistes argue that the district сourt erred in granting defendants summary judgment on their claims of unfair trade practices under the LUTPL, conversion, and misappropriation. The Batistes again contend that the district court improperly determined that the Songwriter’s and Artist Contracts that David Batiste entered into in 1970 are valid and authorize defendants’ use of “Funky Soul.”
The Batistes’ claims of unfair trade practices, conversion and misappropriation are delictual under Louisiana law and are therefore subject to a one-year prescriptive period. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(E) (stating that a private action under the LUTPL “shall be prescribed by one year running from the time of the transaction or act which gave rise to this right of action”); La. Civ. Code Ann. § 3492 (“Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of one year.”); Johnson v. Concordia Bank & Trust Co.,
“[T]he Bliss Album” сontaining the digital sample of “Funky Soul” was released in March 1993, and the Batistes admit that by July 1993 they knew that defendants had used “Funky Soul” without their permission. Nonetheless, the Ba-tistes did not file this suit until March 1995. In their reply brief, the Batistes argue that this court held in Songbyrd,
The Batistes’ arguments misconstrue both our decision in Songbyrd and the equitable tolling doctrine, and neither of these contentions saves their state-law claims from the applicable one-year prescriptive period. Initially, we note that our determination that the plaintiffs cause of action in Songbyrd was not subject to the one-year prescriptive period relied on our conclusion that the plaintiffs claim, which sought recognition of its ownership interest in physical master recordings and the return of those recordings, was a “revindi-catory action” seeking the return of property rather than a “personal action.” See Songbyrd,
D. Pendent Jurisdiction
Following the district court’s entry of summary judgment on all the Batistes’ claims against defendants except Paul and Michael Batiste’s claims of conversion and misappropriation, the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and granted the Batistes’ motion to voluntarily dismiss these claims without prejudice. Defendants appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss these claims without prejudice and urge us to render judgment on these claims as well, arguing that they are also time-barred because they were filed more than one year after Paul and Michael Batiste admit they knew the facts underlying their causes of action. Defendants contend that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the Ba-tistes’ voluntary dismissal just one month before trial and after defendants had spent three years and more than one million dollars fighting this litigation, and defendants further note that the partiеs had engaged in extensive discovery including numerous depositions, provided the district court with hundreds of pages of briefing and several hours of oral argument, and had “extensively addressed” these remaining claims.
We review a district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims for an abuse of discretion. See Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr.,
Although we have stated that our “general rule” is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case prior to trial, this rule is neither mandatory nor absolute. McClelland,
We begin our analysis of the factors relevant to the pendent jurisdiction inquiry by noting that the remaining claims do not involve any “novel or complex” issues of state law. Newport Ltd.,
We also conclude that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties strongly point toward our conclusion that the district court erred by not retaining jurisdiction here. The case had been pending in the district court for almost three years when the court allowed the Batistes’ voluntary dismissal, and the trial was scheduled to begin one month later. See Newport Ltd.,
After considering and weighing all the factors present in this case, and relying especially on our conclusion that the district court was intimately familiar with the Batistes’ claims and the absence of any difficult state-law issue in the remaining claims, wе thus conclude that the district court abused its discretion and reverse its decision dismissing Paul and Michael Batiste’s conversion and misappropriation claims without prejudice. Furthermore, in the interest of further judicial economy and in light of our determination above that the Batistes’ state-law claims are prescribed, we remand Paul and Michael Batiste’s conversion and misappropriation claims to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of all defendants except Bolden, disposing of all claims against such defendants.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing Featherstone for lack of personal jurisdiction, REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Pаul and Michael Batiste’s misappropriation and conversion claims against all defendants except Bolden, and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment in favor of such defendants on those claims.
Notes
. At the time of the events leading to this lawsuit, Island Records, Inc. and Island Records, Ltd. were both subsidiaries of Polygram N.V. For the purposes of this opinion, we will refer to Island Records, Inc., Island Records, Ltd., or both, as Island Records.
. Although the district court's order on September 8, 1997 states that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is "granted,” the accompanying opinion offers no support for this conclusion. In fact, the opinion- states that the Batistes have standing to bring a copyright infringement claim as benefiсial owners of Bolden’s copyright, and the district court ultimately granted defendants summary judgment on the copyright claims. Defendants note this inconsistency and argue on appeal that if the district court did deny their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it did so in error.
. The district court appears to have included Bolden in its disposition of the motions for summary judgment and dismissal. We have carefully reviewed the record, however, and we find no indication that Bolden either joined defendants' motion for summary judgment or made such a motion on his own behalf. We therefore necessarily construe the district court’s order as granting summary judgment only on those claims made against the moving defendants, leaving the Batistes’ claims against Bolden unaffected.
. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over •the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”
. The Balistes failed to provide any argument in either their briefs or at oral argument supporting their appeal of the district court’s order dismissing Featherstone for lack of personal jurisdiction, and we consider this claim abandoned. See Cinel v. Connick,
. Bolden does not appeal, and we do not consider, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of the Batistes' claims against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
. The "Twelfth Street Rag” doctrine derives from the Second Circuit's decision in Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co.,
.The Batistes make two other arguments respecting the validity of the 1993 contracts of which we easily dispose. The Batistes claim that (1) the alleged infringements occurred before any licenses were issued by Bolden, and defendants cannot demonstrate that the agreements preceded the release of "the Bliss Album,” and (2) defendants attempted to assign the benefits of the contracts to each other without obtaining Bolden's prior written consent. We note initially that the summary judgment evidence shows that the Master Recording Sampling License and Mechanical License Agreement had already been executed at the time of release and that the remaining, unexecuted contract does not purport to authorize the use of "Funky Soul.” In addition, to the extent that any writing requirement in the contracts applies to assignments among defendants, the summary judgment evidence demonstrates that Bolden waived such a requirement and implicitly consented to defendants’ use. See Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broadcast Servs., Inc.,
. Under § 43(a),
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services ... uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which ... is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person ... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).