Sports & Entertainment Law News

Case Summaries

Entertainment

[11/12] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.

[11/05] E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.

[10/29] Bernardi v. County of Monterey
Order awarding attorney's fees under Government Code section 6259(d) is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the lodestar amount, calculated by multiplying the number of attorney, law student and paralegal hours by the hourly market rate for each of their services, should have been reduced by two-thirds to reflect plaintiff's partial success, which the defendant described as a "lack of success on two of [her] three central demands"; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to a lodestar enhancement in light of her partial success.

Read More

Sports Law

[10/28] Kindrich v. The Long Beach Yacht Club
In a personal injury action for injuries sustained while disembarking from a boat, summary judgment in favor of defendant-yacht club is reversed where: 1) plaintiff-victim was not engaged in the type of sporting event where the doctrine of primary assumption of risk should have been applied; 2) at most, plaintiff may have assumed risks, categorized as secondary assumption of risk, which are subsumed in contributory negligence; and 3) whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, how his negligence compares with that of the defendants, if any, are questions of fact to be resolved for the trier of fact.

[09/23] State of Alaska v. Fed. Subsistence Bd.
In a challenge to a Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) Customary and Traditional use determination (C & T determination) allowing the Chistochina community increased permission to harvest moose under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the FSB's fact finding regarding the Chistochina's use of moose was supported by substantial evidence and took into account specific moose populations; 2) the C & T determination was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.

[09/12] Major League Baseball Properties v. Salvino
In an antitrust action alleging that plaintiff Major League Baseball Properties violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant failed to adduce evidence to show that the challenged organization and activities had an actual adverse effect on competition or that plaintiff had sufficient market power to inhibit competition market-wide; and 2) defendant's state-law claims contained no argument as to why the district court's dismissal was incorrect.

Read More