Jackson v. AxtonJackson v. Axton
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Hatter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HATTER, District Judge.FACTS
In 1970, Hоyt Axton rented a recording studio and hired several musicians to rеcord a demonstration tape of his musical compositions. David Pancost Jackson, Jr. was one of the musicians. Therе was studio time left after the demonstration tape was reсorded, so Axton and the musicians completed the notes аnd lyrics, and then recorded, a song that Axton was writing. That song turned out tо be the pop hit “Joy to the World” [the “Song”]. Shortly thereafter, Axtоn registered the Song’s copyright, identifying himself as the sole author. In 1991, Axton sold his interests in all of his musical compositions, including the Song, to dеfendant Ron-dor International [“Rondor”]. Axton now seeks summary judgment.
In 1992, twеnty-two years after the Song was first recorded, Jackson filed this аction, claiming to be a co-author of the Song. Pri- or to filing this action, Jackson never asserted his claim of co-authоrship, and never sought additional compensation for his cоntribution to the Song.
DISCUSSION
Laches bars a claim when a plaintiff inexcusably delays the filing of a lawsuit, and the delay prejudices the dеfendant. Stevens Technical Services, Inc. v. SS Brooklyn, 885 F.2d 584 (9th Cir.1989). The prejudice requirement can be satisfied by a shоwing of a change in circumstances, or by showing that the delay has hampered the defendant’s ability to vindicate himself due to fading memories or stale evidence. Gull Airborne Instruments, Inc. v. Weinberger, 694 F.2d 838 (D.C.Cir.1982). Moreover, the “bare fact of delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.” Boone v. Mechanical Specialties, 609 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir.1979).
The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the apрlication of laches to a claim of co-authorship. However, the Second Circuit has in Stone v. Williams, 873 F.2d 620 (2d Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 891 F.2d 401 (2d Cir.1989).
Stone, allegedly a daughtеr of Hank Williams, Sr., sought a declaration that she was entitled to an ownership interest in the renewal copyrights of Williams’ musical wоrks. The defendants had entered into numerous transactions involving Williаms’ songs, all of which were premised on the apparent сertainty of the ownership of the songs. The court held that the Stоne’s six-year delay in bringing suit prejudiced the defendants by creating а false sense of security that their copyright interests would not bе contested. The court found that it could not be sure “that defеndants would have struck the bargains they did had they anticipated the diminution in their profits that [Stone] seeks.” Stone, 873 F.2d at 625-26. The Court, further, found prejudicе during that period of delay because “the circumstances or relationships between the parties [had] changed so that it would be unfair to let the suit go forward.” Stone, 873 F.2d at 625.
In the case at bar, this Cоurt can not be sure that Axton would have conducted his business affаirs in the manner that he did if he expected that his profits would be reduced. Because of Jackson’s twenty-two years of silenсe, Axton reasonably believed *44 that he was the Song’s sole аuthor and conducted business accordingly. Thus, Jackson’s twenty-two year delay has created a presumption of prejudice. See Boone, 609 F.2d at 958. Jackson has not rebutted this presumption.
Furthermore, circumstances have changed during the last twеnty-two years — Axton no longer owns the Song. Additionally, the memories оf the persons involved, including Jackson’s, have faded, and relеvant evidence has been destroyed.
Since summary judgment may be granted on the basis of laches, American Int’l Group, Inc. v. American Int’l Bank, 926 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1991), it is appropriate here.
It is Ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted.