alicea v. ayala, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Alicea v. Ayala, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/36

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1548

ANGEL MARTI NEZ ALI CEA, p/ k/ a Ruf El Fant azt i ko;FREDDY MONTALVO; RAUL RI VERA ROLDAN, p/ k/ a Thi l o;

REYNALDO COLON VEGA, p/ k/ a Li mi t s,Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

J OSE DELGADO, p/ k/ a Buk Dol l ar ;GERRY CAPO HERNANDEZ, p/ k/ a Li oni ze,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

MACHETE MUSI C, a di vi si on of UMG Recor di ngs, I nc. ;UMG RECORDI NGS, I NC. ,Def endant s, Appel l ees,

LT' S BENJ AMI N RECORDS, I NC. ; FRANCI SCO SALDANA, p/ k/ a Luny;VI CTOR CABRERA, p/ k/ a Tunes; RAMON AYALA, p/ k/ a Daddy Yankee;

LOS CANGRI S, I NC. ; EL CARTEL RECORDS, I NC. ,Def endants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eHoward, Sel ya, and St ahl ,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d A. Mech, wi t h whom Law Of f i ces of Davi d A. Mech was on

br i ef , f or appel l ant s.Li nda M. Bur r ow, wi t h whom Al i son Mackenzi e, Cal dwel l Lesl i e& Pr oct or , PC, Dani el J . Cl oher t y, and Col l or a LLP wer e on br i ef ,f or appel l ees.

Mar ch 7, 2014


2/36

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Over a cent ur y ago, Mark Twai n

l ament ed t hat " [ o] nl y one t hi ng i s i mpossi bl e f or God: t o f i nd any

sense i n any copyr i ght l aw on t he pl anet . " Mar k Twai n, The

Compl et e Works of Mark Twai n: Mark Twai n' s Not ebook 381 ( Al ber t

Bi gel ow Pai ne ed. , 1935) . We f ear t hat Twai n' s dei t y woul d f ar e

l i t t l e bet t er wi t h t he t angl ed skei n of copyr i ght and cont r act ual

cl ai ms pr esent ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case. Conf i ni ng our

i nqui r y t o t he ar gument s seasonabl y r ai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct

cour t and to t he f actual backgr ound at t he t i me of summary

j udgment , we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n

gr ant i ng the def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment and denyi ng

t he pl ai nt i f f s' subsequent mot i on f or r econsi der at i on.

I.

The pl ai nt i f f s Angel Mar t i nez Al i cea ( "Mar t i nez" ) , Fr eddy

Mont al vo, Raul Ri ver a Rol dan ( "Ri ver a" ) , and Reynal do Col on Vega

( "Col on") ar e Massachuset t s- based pr oducer s of " r eggaet on" musi c,

a musi cal genr e or i gi nat i ng i n Puer t o Ri co and boast i ng such

di ver se or i gi ns as r eggae, hi p hop, sal sa, and mer i ngue. 1 Thi s

l awsui t concer ns seven songs ul t i mat el y rel eased on an al bum

di st r i but ed by t he def endant s, al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng upon t he

1Two addi t i onal pl ai nt i f f s, J ose Del gado and Ger r y CapoHer nandez, wer e pr evi ousl y di smi ssed f r om t he case.

-2-


3/36

pl ai nt i f f s' copyr i ght s and br eachi ng cont r act s t o whi ch t he

pl ai nt i f f s c l ai m t o be par t i es and/ or t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar i es. 2

The event s under l yi ng t hi s case dat e back t o 2006, when

Fr anci sco Sal dana, a Puert o Ri co- based r eggaet on pr oducer who wi t h

Vi ct or Cabr era f ounded a r ecor d l abel named "Mas Fl ow, " began

l ooki ng f or a new vocal i st . Af t er post i ng an onl i ne adver t i sement ,

Sal dana soon r ecei ved numerous emai l s and r ecor di ngs f r om Gerr y

Capo Hernandez ( "Capo") , a r eggaet on per f ormer t hen r esi di ng i n

Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s. Sal dana i nvi t ed Capo t o hi s recor di ng

st udi o i n Puer t o Ri co, where Capo soon became par t of a new

r eggaet on gr oup known as "Er r e XI . " I n May 2007, Sal dana r eached

out t o Angel Mart i nez Al i cea, Fr eddy Mont al vo, and Et i enne Gagnon,

t hr ee r eggaet on pr oducers f r omSpr i ngf i el d who had worked wi t h Capo

i n t he past , and i nvi t ed t hem t o hi s st udi o t o pr oduce t wo songs

f or Er r e XI . Upon hear i ng t he t wo songs, Sal dana pr onounced

Mar t i nez and Mont al vo hi s "new st ar s. " Mar t i nez and Mont al vo

subsequent l y si gned pr oducer agr eement s wi t h Mas Fl ow ent i t l i ng

t hemt o r oyal t y payment s f or t he songs t hey pr oduced.

Over t he next sever al mont hs, Mart i nez, Capo, Mont al vo,

and Gagnon worked i n Sal dana' s st udi o on new songs f or t he Er r e XI

al bum, per f ormi ng vocal s, composi ng beat s and i nst r ument al s, and

2The pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt al so char ged t he def endant s wi t hcopyr i ght i nf r i ngement and br each of cont r act as t o an ei ght h songt i t l ed "Sal go Pa La Cal l e, " whi ch i s no l onger at i ssue on t hi sappeal .

-3-


4/36

pr ovi di ng sound engi neer i ng servi ces. They wer e j oi ned by Reynal do

Col on Vega, a vocal i st r ecr ui t ed by Mar t i nez and Sal dana i n J ul y

2007, and by Raul Ri vera Rol dan, a pr oducer who had worked wi t h

Sal dana si nce 2004 and who had pr evi ousl y pr oduced t wo songs,

"Mi r al a Bi en" and "Pal et a, " r el eased on a CD t i t l ed "Pa' l Mundo" i n

2005. Col on si gned an excl usi ve r ecor di ng agr eement wi t h Mas Fl ow

i n September 2007, whi l e Ri vera had si gned a pr oducer agr eement

wi t h Mas Fl ow i n J une 2006.

Si nce Apr i l 2004, Mas Fl ow had l i censed t o Machete Musi c

( "Machet e") , a di vi si on of UMG Recor di ngs, I nc. ( "UMG") , t he

"excl usi ve r i ght t o sel l and di st r i but e" Mas Fl ow' s recor di ngs. I n

August 2007, Mas Fl ow and i t s successor i n i nt er est , LT' s Benj ami n

Recor ds, I nc. ( "LT") , ent er ed i nt o a new Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement

wi t h Machet e, cr eat i ng a new r ecor d l abel and pr ovi di ng f or t he

di vi si on of pr of i t s f r om t he sal e of al bums del i ver ed by Mas Fl ow

and di st r i but ed by Machete.

Seven songs on whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s wor ked event ual l y

appear ed on t he Er r e XI al bum di st r i but ed by Machet e i n 2008: "Al

Desnudo, " "Car i t a Boni t a, " "Di mel o, " "El l a Me Amo, " "La Car t a, "

"MSN, " and "Te Hi ce Vol ar . " Al t hough t he mel odi es t o t hese songs

r emai ned l ar gel y i dent i cal t o t he ver si ons pr oduced by the

pl ai nt i f f s, many of t he pl ai nt i f f s' musi cal and vocal cont r i but i ons

wer e r epl aced wi t h t he wor k of ot her ar t i st s.

-4-


5/36

The pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t on J anuar y 5, 2010, asser t i ng

count s of copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , br each of cont r act , f r audul ent

i nducement of servi ces, unj ust enr i chment , and i nt ent i onal and

negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di st r ess. Thei r compl ai nt named

as def endant s Sal dana, Cabr er a, Whi t e Kr af t Musi c Publ i shi ng, and

LT ( t he "LT def endant s" ) ; Ramon Ayal a, pr of essi onal l y known as

"Daddy Yankee, " El Car t el Recor ds, I nc. , and Los Cangr i s, I nc. ( t he

"Daddy Yankee def endant s" ) ; and UMG and Machet e ( t he "UMG

def endant s" ) . 3 Two mont hs l ater , Capo and Col on r egi st ered wi t h

t he U. S. Copyr i ght Of f i ce t he copyr i ght s i n t he sound r ecor di ngs

f or f our of t he songs, "Car i t a Boni t a, " " Al Desnudo, " " Te Hi ce

Vol ar , " and "Di mel o, " each of whi ch had numerous composers and

vocal i s ts . I n J ul y 2010, t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed wi t h t he di s tr i ct

cour t a pr i nt out f r omt he Copyr i ght Of f i ce i ndi cat i ng t hat t hey had

f i l ed f or sound r ecor di ng r egi st r at i on i n t he r emai ni ng t hr ee

songs.

On J anuar y 11, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he

magi st r ate j udge' s r eport and r ecommendat i on, gr ant i ng t he mot i on

t o di smi ss as t o t he Daddy Yankee def endant s f or f ai l ur e t o st at e

a cl ai m and l ack of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on and al so di smi ssi ng t he

emot i onal di st r ess cl ai ms agai nst t he UMG def endant s. However , t he

cour t deni ed t he UMG def endant s' Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss

3Whi t e Kr af t Musi c Publ i shi ng and UMG were not named asdef endant s i n t he or i gi nal compl ai nt , and were added i n t hepl ai nt i f f s' second amended compl ai nt .

-5-


6/36

t he pl ai nt i f f s' copyr i ght and cont r act cl ai ms. On Oct ober 6, 2011,

t he cour t adopt ed a second r epor t and recommendat i on f r om t he

magi st r at e j udge and di smi ssed the cl ai ms agai nst t he LT def endant s

f or l ack of per sonal j ur i sdi cti on. 4 Nei t her t he Daddy Yankee

def endant s nor t he LT def endant s r emai n par t i es t o t hi s appeal .

The r emai ni ng def endant s, Machete and UMG, moved f or

summary j udgment . Wi t h r espect t o t he copyr i ght cl ai ms, t he

def endant s ar gued i nt er al i a t hat as l at e as Sept ember 2011 t he

pl ai nt i f f s st i l l had not shown t hat t hey had r egi st er ed copyr i ght s

i n t he under l yi ng composi t i ons t hat t hey cl ai med wer e i nf r i nged, as

i s r equi r ed under 17 U. S. C. 411( a) . As f or t he cont r act cl ai ms,

t he def endant s ar gued t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had f ai l ed t o est abl i sh

ei t her t hat t hey had a di r ect cont r act ual r el at i onshi p wi t h t he UMG

def endant s or t hat t hey wer e t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar i es of t he

di st r i but i on and pr of i t shar e agr eement s between Machete and Mas

Fl ow.

I n opposi t i on t o t he def endant s' mot i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s

st at ed t hat t hey had f i l ed copi es of t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng Er r e

XI r ecor di ngs wi t h t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce, and i nt r oduced an emai l

f r om t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce expl ai ni ng t hat t he of f i ce was st i l l i n

t he pr ocess of det er mi ni ng whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s had submi t t ed

4The magi st r at e j udge al so r ecommended t he di smi ssal of Ger r yCapo Her nandez as a pl ai nt i f f , as Capo had st at ed i n an af f i davi tt hat he di d not wi sh t o cont i nue as a pl ai nt i f f .

-6-


7/36

per mi ssi bl e deposi t s of t he r ecor di ngs. 5 At a J anuary 2012 hear i ng

on t he def endant s' mot i on, pl ai nt i f f s' counsel i nf or med t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce st i l l had yet t o det er mi ne

whet her t he deposi t ed r ecor di ngs, al t hough not t he or i gi nal

r ecor di ngs on whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s had wor ked, wer e never t hel ess

accept abl e f or r egi st r at i on pur poses.

On Febr uary 23, 2012, t he cour t gr ant ed t he UMG

def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment . The cour t concl uded t hat

even "[ a] f t er mor e t han t wo year s of l i t i gat i on, " t he pl ai nt i f f s

had not sat i sf i ed t he r egi st r at i on pr econdi t i on of 411( a) , havi ng

nei t her obt ai ned r egi st r at i on cer t i f i cat es f or t he composi t i ons nor

even shown t hat t hey had submi t t ed al l of t he necessar y appl i cat i on

mat er i al s f or r egi st r at i on. Wi t h r espect t o t he br each of cont r act

cl ai ms, t he cour t f ound no evi dence ei t her of a di r ect agr eement

bet ween t he par t i es or of t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y stat us. The

cour t al so deni ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or addi t i onal di scover y

under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( d) and t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o t r ansf er

t he case t o t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co and consol i dat e i t wi t h

par al l el l i t i gat i on pendi ng t her e.

5The pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i al l y appear ed t o concede t hei r copyr i ght

i nf r i ngement cl ai ms, st at i ng i n t hei r opposi t i on t o t he def endant s'summary j udgment mot i on t hat "as f ar as Er r e XI i s concerned, " t heywer e "no l onger al l egi ng copyr i ght i nf r i ngement . " But t heyr easser t ed copyr i ght i nf r i ngement i n a subsequent sur - r epl y, andt he di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y r ul ed on t he copyr i ght cl ai ms i n i t ssummary j udgment order . We t heref ore decl i ne t he def endant s'i nvi t at i on t o t r eat t hese cl ai ms as wai ved out r i ght .

-7-


8/36

Four weeks l at er , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on t o

r econsi der under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59( e) , cl ai mi ng "new evi dence"

unavai l abl e at t he t i me of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der : namel y,

newl y obt ai ned Copyr i ght Of f i ce r egi st r at i on cer t i f i cat es f or t wo

of t he Er r e XI songs ( "Car i t a Boni t a" and "MSN") and r ej ect i on

l et t er s f or t hr ee ot her songs f r om t he al bum ( "El l a Me Amo, "

"Di mel o, " and "Al Desnudo") . 6 The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s

mot i on on Apr i l 18, 2012. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II.

On appeal , t he pl ai nt i f f s assi gn er r or t o t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s gr ant of summary j udgment and i t s subsequent deni al of

t hei r mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, al ong wi t h i t s deni al of t hei r

mot i ons f or t r ansf er and addi t i onal di scover y. We begi n wi t h t he

summary j udgment order , whi ch we r evi ew de novo. I n so doi ng, we

"dr aw[ ] al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y

whi l e i gnor i ng concl usor y al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and

unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Smi t h v. J enki ns, 732 F. 3d 51, 76 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n r evi ewi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he pl ai nt i f f s' subsequent mot i on t o

r econsi der t he summary j udgment order , we "wi l l not overt ur n t he

cour t ' s det er mi nat i on unl ess a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce i s i n

pr ospect or t he r ecor d ot her wi se r eveal s a mani f est abuse of

6As f or t he remai ni ng t wo songs, "La Car t a" and "Te Hi ceVol ar , " t he pl ai nt i f f s st at ed i n t hei r mot i on t hat t he r egi st r at i onappl i cat i ons wer e "st i l l pendi ng. "

-8-


9/36

di scr et i on. " Mel ndez v. Aut oger mana, I nc. , 622 F. 3d 46, 55 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We ar e not bound by

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r at i onal e, and we may "af f i r ma cor r ect r esul t

r eached by t he cour t bel ow on any i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent gr ound

made mani f est by the r ecor d. " Hodgens v. Gen. Dynami cs Corp. , 144

F. 3d 151, 173 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

We t ur n f i r st t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai ms.

A. Copyright Claims

1. Summary Judgment

The di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment t o t he

def endant s r est ed on i t s concl usi on t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had f ai l ed

t o r egi st er t hei r copyr i ght s i n t he al l egedl y i nf r i nged

composi t i ons, a pr er equi si t e t o an i nf r i ngement act i on under 17

U. S. C. 411( a) . Sect i on 411( a) provi des i n per t i nent par t t hat

"no ci vi l act i on f or i nf r i ngement of t he copyr i ght i n any Uni t ed

St at es wor k shal l be i nst i t ut ed unt i l pr er egi st r at i on or

r egi st r at i on of t he copyr i ght cl ai m has been made i n accor dance

wi t h t hi s t i t l e. " I n or der t o r egi st er a copyr i ght i n a publ i shed

wor k, t he owner of a copyr i ght must submi t t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce

an appl i cat i on, f ee, and t wo compl et e copi es of t he wor k t o be

copyr i ght ed. See 17 U. S. C. 408( a) , ( b) ( 2) . Al t hough t hi s

r egi st r at i on r equi r ement does not ci r cumscr i be a f eder al cour t ' s

subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, t he Supr eme Cour t has descr i bed i t as

"a pr econdi t i on t o f i l i ng a cl ai m. " Reed El sevi er , I nc. v.

-9-


10/36

Muchni ck, 559 U. S. 154, 157 ( 2010) ; see al so Lat i n Am. Musi c Co.

I nc. v. Medi a Power Gr p. , I nc. , 705 F. 3d 34, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

As t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed, and as we descr i bed i n

Lat i n Amer i can Musi c Co. , "[ c] i r cui t s ar e spl i t on whet her t he

r egi st r at i on r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed at t he t i me t he copyr i ght

hol der ' s appl i cat i on i s r ecei ved by t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce ( t he

' appl i cat i on appr oach' ) , or at t he t i me t hat t he Of f i ce act s on t he

appl i cat i on and i ssues a cer t i f i cat e of r egi st r at i on ( t he

' r egi st r at i on appr oach' ) . " 705 F. 3d at 43 n. 11 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) ; see al so 2 Mel vi l l e B. Ni mmer & Davi d Ni mmer ,

Ni mmer on Copyr i ght 7. 16[ B] [ 3] ( di scuss i ng t he two appr oaches and

f avor i ng t he appl i cat i on appr oach) . 7 Lat i n Amer i can Musi c Co. di d

not gi ve us occasi on t o choose bet ween the t wo paradi gms, as t he

pl ai nt i f f coul d not even "show t hat i t had submi t t ed al l t he

necessar y appl i cat i on mat er i al s f or r egi st r at i on. " 705 F. 3d at 43

n. 11. Our concl usi on was consi st ent wi t h Ni mmer ' s expl anat i on t hat

[ a] bsent i ssuance of a cer t i f i cat e and i n t heabsence of t he copyr i ght owner even havi ngsent t he r equi si t e appl i cat i on ( t oget her wi t hdeposi t and f ee) t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce,

7For cases appl yi ng t he regi st r at i on appr oach, see, e. g. , LaResol ana Ar chi t ect s, PA v. Cl ay Real t or s Angel Fi r e, 416 F. 3d 1195,1202- 07 ( 10t h Ci r . 2005) , abr ogated on other gr ounds by Reed

El sevi er , 559 U. S. 154; M. G. B. Homes, I nc. v. Amer on Homes, I nc. ,903 F. 2d 1486, 1488- 89 (11t h Ci r . 1990) , abr ogated on other gr oundsby Reed El sevi er , 559 U. S. 154. For t he appl i cat i on appr oach, see,e. g. , Cosmet i c I deas, I nc. v. I AC/ I nt er act i vecor p. , 606 F. 3d 612,615- 21 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ; Chi . Bd. of Educ. v. Subst ance, I nc. , 354F. 3d 624, 631 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) ; Appl e Bar r el Pr ods. , I nc. v. Bear d,730 F. 2d 384, 386- 87 ( 5t h Ci r . 1984) .

-10-


11/36

t her e i s, under al l vi ewpoi nt s, a def ect undert he stat ut e . . . . As an absol ut e l i mi t , i f t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce has f ai l ed t o r ecei ve t henecessar y el ement s t o i ssue a r egi st r at i oncer t i f i cat e pr i or t o t he t i me t hat t he cour ti s cal l ed upon t o i ssue f i nal j udgment , t he

act i on must be di smi ssed.

Ni mmer , supr a, 7. 16[ B] [ 3] [ c] ( f oot not es omi t t ed) ; see al so Ker nel

Recor ds Oy v. Mosl ey, 694 F. 3d 1294, 1302 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) .

Once agai n, we need not deci de whether t he appl i cat i on

appr oach or t he r egi st r at i on appr oach shoul d gover n, as we concl ude

t hat t he def endant s were ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment under ei t her

appr oach. Mor e speci f i cal l y, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat summary j udgment was pr oper because t her e was a

l ack of evi dence as t o "whet her t he copi es [ t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s]

submi t t ed t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce [ i . e. , copi es of t he al l egedl y

i nf r i ngi ng sound r ecor di ngs f r omt he def endant s' al bumr at her t han

t he or i gi nal r ecor di ngs on whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s had wor ked] me[ t ]

al l of t he r equi r ement s f or deposi t copi es" and " t he Copyr i ght

Of f i ce ha[ d] not yet t aken a posi t i on on whet her i t ha[ d] r ecei ved

al l of t he r equi r ed mat er i al s f or r egi st r at i on. "

We f i nd no competent evi dence t o the cont r ary i n t he

summar y j udgment r ecor d. I nst ead, t he pl ai nt i f f s submi t t ed an

emai l f r om t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce dat ed Sept ember 22, 2011, whi ch

st at ed t hat t he of f i ce was st i l l "wai t i ng t o r esol ve" t he quest i on

of "whet her a copy of an[ ] unaut hor i zed t r ack, t hat cont ai ns t he

or i gi nal composi t i on embedded i n t he t r ack, can be used as deposi t

-11-


12/36

mat er i al . " The emai l f ur t her expl ai ned t hat " i n gener al , an

unaut hor i zed copy cannot be used as deposi t mat er i al . " Over f our

mont hs l at er , at a hear i ng bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t on t he

def endant s' summary j udgment mot i on, no progr ess appeared t o have

been made: pl ai nt i f f s' counsel i nf or med t he cour t t hat t he

Copyr i ght Of f i ce was st i l l " t r yi ng t o det er mi ne [ ] whet her or not

t he deposi t copi es, t he act ual songs we deposi t ed, ar e okay t o

deposi t , " and admi t t ed t hat t he of f i ce had "not yet deci ded one way

or another whether t hey have a deposi t copy" and, i f not , whether

t he pl ai nt i f f s woul d be "r el i eved of t he obl i gat i on t o submi t a

deposi t copy i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case. "

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, we f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s summar y j udgment or der . Mor e t han t wo year s af t er f i l i ng

sui t , t he pl ai nt i f f s st i l l had not establ i shed t hat t hei r

appl i cat i ons t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce wer e compl et e; by thei r own

admi ss i on, t he adequacy of t he deposi t ed r ecor di ngs r emai ned an

open quest i on. Cf . Geoscan, I nc. of Tex. v. Geot r ace Techs. , I nc. ,

226 F. 3d 387, 393 ( 5th Ci r . 2000) ( uphol di ng summary j udgment wher e

"cor r espondence bet ween t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce and [ pl ai nt i f f ]

i ndi cat e[ d] t hat r egi st r at i on of t he copyr i ght s was not compl et e

. . . because [ pl ai nt i f f ] had not submi t t ed f or deposi t t he

or i gi nal sour ce codes f or i t s sof t war e . . . . ") .

Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s assi gn bl ame t o bot h t he

def endant s and t he di st r i ct cour t f or t hi s st at e of af f ai r s, we ar e

-12-


13/36

unper suaded by t hei r ar gument s. The pl ai nt i f f s' appel l at e br i ef i s

f i l l ed wi t h bl ur r ed and obl i que i nsi nuat i ons of wr ongdoi ng by the

def endant s, t he i mpor t of whi ch i s not cl ear . Faced wi t h t hese

r udi ment ar y asser t i ons, "we see no reason t o abandon t he set t l ed

appel l at e r ul e t hat i ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct or y manner ,

unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed

wai ved. " Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ;

see al so Tower v. Lesl i e- Br own, 326 F. 3d 290, 299 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

The pl ai nt i f f s el sewhere appear t o cont end t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t i gnor ed t he exi st ence of sound r ecor di ng

r egi st r at i ons obt ai ned by Capo and Col on f or f our of t he songs.

Thi s ar gument , t oo, i s a nonst ar t er . As we have expl ai ned i n t he

past , "sound r ecor di ngs and t hei r under l yi ng musi cal composi t i ons

ar e separ at e wor ks wi t h t hei r own di st i nct copyr i ght s. " J ohnson v.

Gor don, 409 F. 3d 12, 26 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks and br acket s omi t t ed) . Gi ven t hat di st i nct i on, t he Copyr i ght

Of f i ce onl y per mi t s t he j oi nt r egi st r at i on of a musi cal composi t i on

and a sound r ecor di ng i n a si ngl e appl i cat i on " i f owner shi p of t he

copyr i ght s i n bot h i s exact l y t he same. " U. S. Copyr i ght Of f i ce,

Ci r cul ar 56A: Copyr i ght Regi st r at i on of Musi cal Composi t i ons and

Sound Recor di ngs ( 2012) . As t he part i es do not di sput e t hat t he

aut hor shi p of t he f our r egi st er ed sound r ecor di ngs i s not

coextensi ve wi t h t he aut hor shi p of t he under l yi ng composi t i ons, t he

-13-


14/36

r egi st r at i on of t he sound r ecor di ngs has no bear i ng on t he

pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms f or composi t i onal copyr i ght i nf r i ngement .

To t he ext ent t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s al t er nat i vel y suggest

on appeal t hat t hey ar e al so cl ai mi ng i nf r i ngement i n t he sound

r ecor di ngs, t hat cl ai m l acks any f oundat i on i n t he under l yi ng

compl ai nt , whi ch r ef er s onl y t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' copyr i ght s i n t he

"Or i gi nal Composi t i ons. " I t i s t her ef or e no sur pr i se t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess t hi s pur por t ed cl ai m i n i t s summar y

j udgment or der . The pl ai nt i f f s' f ai l ure t o adequatel y r ai se t hi s

argument bel ow dooms i t on appeal . See I ver son v. Ci t y of Bost on,

452 F. 3d 94, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( " [ T] heor i es not squar el y and

t i mel y r ai sed i n t he t r i al cour t cannot be pur sued f or t he f i r st

t i me on appeal . " ) ; see al so McCoy v. Mass. I nst . of Tech. , 950 F. 2d

13, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

We reach t he same concl usi on wi t h respect t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s' supposed r equest f or a decl ar at i on of j oi nt aut hor shi p.

The st at ement of cl ai ms i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt makes no

ment i on of a j oi nt aut hor shi p cl ai m; t he onl y r ef er ences t o such a

cl ai mar e cont ai ned i n t he "Nat ur e of t he Act i on" and "Request s f or

Rel i ef " sect i ons, whi ch r equest t hat t he cour t decl ar e each of t he

pl ai nt i f f s " an aut hor . . . and co- owner of copyr i ght i n t he

Or i gi nal Composi t i ons. " But "t he pr ayer f or r el i ef i s no par t of

t he cause of act i on, " Col l v. Fi r st Am. Ti t l e I ns. Co. , 642 F. 3d

876, 901 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , and

-14-


15/36

t he pl ai nt i f f s cannot now f l esh out t hi s i nadequat el y pl eaded cl ai m

on appeal , see I ver son, 452 F. 3d at 102; McCoy, 950 F. 2d at 22.

2. Motion for Reconsideration

We now t ur n t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on. At some poi nt af t er t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued i t s

summar y j udgment or der , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i nal l y obt ai ned copyr i ght

r egi st r at i ons i n t wo of t he songs, "MSN" and "Car i t a Boni t a. "

Thei r appl i cat i ons f or r egi st r at i on i n t hree ot her songs ( "El l a Me

Amo, " "Di mel o, " and "Al Desnudo") were deni ed on t he basi s t hat t he

non- or i gi nal deposi t copi es di d not cont ai n t he pl ai nt i f f s'

cont r i but i ons. At l east wi t h r espect t o t he t wo r egi st er ed songs,

t he pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hat newl y di scover ed evi dence - - t o wi t ,

t he cer t i f i cat es of r egi st r at i on - - r equi r ed t he cour t t o gr ant

t hei r mot i on f or r econsi der at i on. 8

The pl ai nt i f f s moved f or r econsi der at i on wi t hi n t he 28-

day wi ndow pr ovi ded by Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59( e) , and we ther ef or e

t r eat t hei r mot i on as a mot i on t o al t er or amend t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s j udgment . See Uni t ed St at es v. $23, 000 i n U. S. Cur r ency,

356 F. 3d 157, 165 n. 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Rul e 59( e) cont empl ates

r econsi der at i on based on, i nt er al i a, evi dence di scover ed af t er t he

8To t he ext ent t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s i mpl y t hat t he Copyr i ghtOf f i ce r ej ect i on l et t er s al so r epr esent new evi dence compel l i ngr econsi der at i on, we f i nd t hei r ar gument unf ounded: t he Copyr i ghtOf f i ce' s deci si on t o r ej ect t hr ee of t he appl i cat i ons f ori nadequat e deposi t s vi ndi cat es, r at her t han cal l s i nt o quest i on,t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on at summar y j udgment .

-15-


16/36

ent r y of j udgment , and we have caut i oned t hat i t "does not al l ow a

par t y t o i nt r oduce new evi dence or advance ar gument s t hat coul d and

shoul d have been pr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t pr i or t o

j udgment . " Emmanuel v. I nt ' l Bhd. of Teamst er s, Local Uni on No.

25, 426 F. 3d 416, 422 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . A di st r i ct cour t t hus "does not abuse i t s di scret i on by

denyi ng a mot i on f or r econsi derat i on gr ounded on t he di scover y of

evi dence t hat , i n t he exer ci se of due di l i gence, coul d have been

pr esent ed ear l i er . " I d. ; see al so 11 Char l es Al an Wr i ght & Ar t hur

R. Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce and Pr ocedur e 2808 ( "Newl y di scover ed

evi dence must be of f act s exi st i ng at t he t i me of t r i al . The

movi ng part y must have been excusabl y i gnorant of t he f act s despi t e

usi ng due di l i gence t o l ear n about t hem. " ( f oot not es omi t t ed) ) .

I n denyi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or r econsi der at i on,

t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat i t di d so "f or t he r easons set f or t h

i n Def endant s' Opposi t i on and support i ng memorandum. " I n t hei r

opposi t i on t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on, t he def endant s had ar gued

t hat r econsi der at i on of t he copyr i ght cl ai ms "woul d be f ut i l e

because pl ai nt i f f s gr ant ed l i censes f or use of t hei r composi t i ons, "

i mmuni zi ng t he def endant s f r om l i abi l i t y f or i nf r i ngement . We do

not r each t he quest i on of whet her t he def endant s hel d l i censes i n

t he pl ai nt i f f s' composi t i ons, however , as t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on

f or r econsi der at i on f ai l s f or an even mor e f undament al r eason. See

Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 173 ( we may "af f i r m a cor r ect r esul t r eached

-16-


17/36

by t he cour t bel ow on any i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent gr ound made

mani f est by t he recor d" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Speci f i cal l y, t he subsequent l y obt ai ned cer t i f i cat es of

r egi st r at i on f or "Car i t a Boni t a" and "MSN" do not r epr esent "newl y

di scover ed evi dence" war r ant i ng r econsi der at i on under Rul e 59( e) .

Thi s concl usi on i s par t i cul ar l y st r ai ght f or war d under t he

"r egi st r at i on appr oach" di scussed above. At t he t i me t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed i t s summar y j udgment or der , t he pl ai nt i f f s

had not yet obt ai ned r egi st r at i on i n any of t he Er r e XI songs.

Gi ven t hat st at e of af f ai r s, t he di st r i ct cour t was ent i r el y

j ust i f i ed i n awar di ng summar y j udgment . The pl ai nt i f f s' subsequent

success i n r egi st er i ng "Car i t a Boni t a" and "MSN" i s si mpl y besi de

t he poi nt , as t hese r egi st r at i ons ar e new f act s al t oget her , not new

evi dence of f act s exi st i ng at t he t i me of summary j udgment . See 11

Wr i ght & Mi l l er , supr a, at 2808; cf . Bet t er box Commc' ns Lt d. v.

BB Techs. , I nc. , 300 F. 3d 325, 330- 32 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) ( Al i t o, J . )

( r ej ect i ng count er cl ai mi ng def endant ' s ar gument t hat subsequent

cancel l at i on of pl ai nt i f f ' s t r ademar k regi st r at i on const i t ut ed

"newl y di scover ed evi dence" j ust i f yi ng r el i ef under Fed. R. Ci v. P.

60( b) ( 2) , "because the f act of cancel l at i on was not i n exi st ence at

t he t i me of t r i al ") .

The pl ai nt i f f s f ar e no bet t er under t he "appl i cat i on

appr oach. " At best , t he subsequent r egi st r at i ons mi ght be t aken as

pr oof t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had submi t t ed compl et e appl i cat i ons f or

-17-


18/36

t hese t wo songs by t he t i me of summar y j udgment . 9 Even assumi ng

t hat t o be the case, however , t he pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat

t hey wer e excusabl y i gnor ant of t he f act t hat t hei r appl i cat i ons

were compl et e at t he t i me of summary j udgment , or t hat due

di l i gence ( e. g. , an i nqui r y t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce) woul d not have

uncover ed t hi s f act . See Emmanuel , 426 F. 3d at 422; 11 Wr i ght &

Mi l l er , supr a, at 2808. To t he cont r ar y, si nce t he pl ai nt i f f s

t hemsel ves wer e responsi bl e f or submi t t i ng a compl et e appl i cat i on

t o t he Copyr i ght Of f i ce, i t i s onl y f ai r t o i nf er t hat t hey wer e i n

a posi t i on t o know whet her t hei r appl i cat i ons wer e compl et e and t o

pr ovi de t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h evi dence of t hi s f act .

The pl ai nt i f f s t ook nei t her of t hese st eps; i nst ead, as

shown above, t hey r epr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he

Copyr i ght Of f i ce had not yet det er mi ned whet her t hei r appl i cat i ons

wer e compl et e. Mor eover , t he pl ai nt i f f s di d not f i l e a mot i on f or

cont i nuance i n or der t o obt ai n evi dence t hat t he appl i cat i ons wer e

i n f act compl et e. We t her ef or e f i nd i t sur passi ngl y har d t o

9We not e, however , t hat not hi ng i n the recor d appears t ocompel t hat concl usi on. The pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or r econsi der at i onand at t ached cer t i f i cat es of r egi st r at i on of f er no expl anat i on f orwhy "Car i t a Boni t a" and "MSN" were regi st ered but t he ot her songswer e not . I t i s cer t ai nl y possi bl e t hat t hese t wo appl i cat i onswere not compl ete unt i l af t er summary j udgment , i n whi ch case t he

r egi st r at i ons woul d not r epr esent evi dence of f act s exi st i ng at t het i me of summary j udgment . Cf . Bet t erbox, 300 F. 3d at 331- 32( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat "post - t r i al cancel l at i on show[ ed]t hat , at t he t i me of t r i al , t he [ Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce] hadal r eady deci ded t o cancel " t he r egi st r at i on, because the "not i ce ofcancel l at i on [ di d] not r eveal t hat a deci si on t o cancel had beenmade at t he t i me of t r i al " ) .

-18-


19/36

bel i eve t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s coul d not have exer ci sed gr eat er

di l i gence ei t her i n f i l i ng t hei r appl i cat i ons wi t h t he Copyr i ght

Of f i ce or i n t hei r r epr esent at i ons bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t

concer ni ng t he r egi st r at i on i ssue. Cf . Bet t er box, 300 F. 3d at 332

( even assumi ng arguendo t hat subsequent cancel l at i on was evi dence

t hat an i nt er nal deci si on had been made t o cancel t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

t r ademar k regi st r at i on by t he t i me of t r i al , t he count er cl ai mant

"ha[ d] not shown t hat i t exer ci sed due di l i gence i n at t empt i ng t o

obt ai n evi dence of such a deci si on, " nor had i t "ask[ ed] f or a

t r i al cont i nuance f or t he pur pose of obt ai ni ng evi dence t hat

cancel l at i on was i mmi nent " ) . We t her ef or e f i nd no abuse of

di scret i on on t he par t of t he di st r i ct cour t .

B. Contract Claims

1. Rivera Claim

The pl ai nt i f f Raul Ri ver a Rol dan brought an i ndi vi dual

cl ai mf or br each of cont r act based on an al l eged di r ect cont r act ual

r el at i onshi p wi t h t he UMG def endant s as t o t wo songs, "Mi r al a Bi en"

and "Pal et a, " f r om t he 2005 "Pa' l Mundo" CD. I n addi t i on t o

expr essi ng skept i ci sm as t o whet her t hi s cl ai m was adequat el y set

f or t h i n t he compl ai nt , t he di st r i ct cour t al so f ound "no evi dence"

of such a cont r act i n t he r ecor d, and accor di ngl y gr ant ed summary

j udgment t o t he def endant s.

The part i es do not di sput e t he appl i cabi l i t y of

Massachuset t s cont r act l aw t o t hi s act i on. I n or der t o est abl i sh

-19-


20/36

a cl ai mf or br each of cont r act under Massachuset t s l aw, a pl ai nt i f f

must , i nt er al i a, "pr ove t hat a val i d, bi ndi ng cont r act exi st ed. "

Br ooks v. AI G SunAmer i ca Li f e Assur ance Co. , 480 F. 3d 579, 586 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) . Mor eover , a pl ai nt i f f cannot mer el y "al l ege, i n

concl usory f ashi on, t hat t he def endant br eached t he cont r act , " and

must i nst ead "descri b[ e] , wi t h subst ant i al cer t ai nt y, t he speci f i c

cont r act ual pr omi se t he def endant f ai l ed t o keep. " I d. ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Appl yi ng t hat l egal st andar d, we f i nd no er r or on t he

par t of t he di st r i ct cour t . We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

Count I X of t he pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt , al l egi ng br each of cont r act

as to Ri ver a, f ai l s to i dent i f y - - l et al one "descr i b[ e] , wi t h

subst ant i al cer t ai nt y, " i d. - - a speci f i c cont r act bet ween Ri ver a

and the UMG def endant s. 10 Nor does any of Ri ver a' s ci t ed evi dence

est abl i sh such a cont r act . Al t hough Ri ver a di d si gn a 2006

r ecor di ng agr eement wi t h Mas Fl ow pr ovi di ng f or t he payment of

r oyal t i es, t hat document makes no ment i on of t he UMG def endants and

i nst ead l eaves Mas Fl ow r esponsi bl e f or compensat i on. Ri ver a' s

subj ect i ve under st andi ng t hat "Uni ver sal Musi c [ i . e. , UMG] was

r esponsi bl e f or payi ng t he mechani cal r oyal t i es" i s not al one

10Count I X i nst ead al l eges t hat Ri ver a cont r act ed wi t h t he LTdef endant s and t hat t hi s cont r act was l at er " t r ansf er r ed t o ' TheLabel ' " - - i . e. , t he "Label " cr eat ed by t he 2007 Pr of i t Shar eAgreement between LT and Machete. As we expl ai n i n sect i on B. 3i nf r a, however , t he pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o adequat el y rai sebef or e us t he ar gument t hat t hei r cont r act s were assi gned t o t heUMG def endant s, and we t heref ore consi der i t wai ved.

-20-


21/36

enough t o pr ove t he exi st ence of a di r ect cont r act wi t h t he UMG

def endant s. Fi nal l y, a UMG "song i nf or mat i on sheet " showi ng

Ri ver a' s r oyal t y per cent age i s not i t sel f a cont r act bet ween Ri ver a

and UMG, and Ri ver a has poi nt ed t o no speci f i c agr eement t o whi ch

t hi s document i s t i ed.

The r emai ni ng evi dence on whi ch Ri ver a r el i es - - t he 2007

Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement , and an exper t wi t ness r epor t i nt er pr et i ng

t hi s agr eement - - r ef l ect s an agr eement bet ween LT and Machete, and

i n no way est abl i shes a di r ect cont r act ual r el at i onshi p bet ween

Ri vera and t he UMG def endants. Whet her Ri vera and t he ot her

pl ai nt i f f s ar e t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar i es of t hi s cont r act i s a

separ at e quest i on t o whi ch we pr esent l y t ur n.

2. Profit Share Agreement

The pl ai nt i f f s next cont end t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n awar di ng summar y j udgment on t hei r t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y

cl ai ms r egar di ng t he def endant s' al l eged br each of t he August 2007

Pr of i t Share Agreement bet ween Machet e and LT. Not i ng t hat onl y

one of t he pl ai nt i f f s ( Ri ver a) was even named i n t he Agr eement , t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had "f ai l ed t o pl ead

suf f i ci ent f acts t o suppor t " a thi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y cl ai m and

t hat t hey wer e at best mer el y i nci dent al benef i ci ar i es of t he

Prof i t Share Agr eement .

Under Massachuset t s l aw, a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng t o enf or ce

a cont r act as a t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y must demonst r at e "f r omt he

-21-


22/36

l anguage and ci r cumst ances of t he cont r act t hat t he par t i es t o the

cont r act cl ear l y and def i ni t el y i nt ended t he benef i ci ar i es t o

benef i t f r om t he pr omi sed per f or mance. " Mi l l er v. Mooney, 725

N. E. 2d 545, 550 (Mass. 2000) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and br acket s

omi t t ed) ; see al so Ander son v. Fox Hi l l Vi l l . Homeowner s Cor p. , 676

N. E. 2d 821, 822- 23 ( Mass. 1997) . Mer el y i nci dent al benef i ci ar i es

l ack st andi ng t o enf or ce a cont r act . See Har var d Law Sch. Coal .

f or Ci vi l Ri ght s v. Pr esi dent & Fel l ows of Har var d Col l . , 595

N. E. 2d 316, 319 ( Mass. 1992) ; Choat e, Hal l & St ewar t v. SCA Servs. ,

I nc. , 392 N. E. 2d 1045, 1051 ( Mass. 1979) ; Rest atement ( Second) of

Cont r act s 302, 315 ( 1981) . On appeal , t he pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o

f our par agr aphs of t he Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement evi nci ng, i n t hei r

vi ew, a suf f i ci ent l y cl ear and def i ni t e i nt ent f or t hem t o

benef i t . 11 We address each i n t urn.

Par agr aph E. 2 of t he Agr eement , t i t l ed "Producer

Royal t y, " gover ns compensat i on of t he pr oducer s of r ecor di ngs f or

t he newl y- cr eat ed r ecor d l abel ( t he "Label " ) . 12 The pl ai nt i f f s

11We summar i l y rej ect t he pl ai nt i f f s' addi t i onal ar gument t hatsummary j udgment was i mpr oper because t he di st r i ct cour ter r oneousl y rel i ed upon t he "sel f - servi ng st at ement s of Def endant s'counsel , " who t est i f i ed t hat Machet e and LT di d not ent er i nt o t hePr of i t Shar e Agr eement wi t h any i nt ent t o benef i t t he pl ai nt i f f s.As an i ni t i al mat t er , i t i s l ess than cl ear t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i n f act r el i ed upon t hi s t est i mony, as i t i s nowher e ci t ed i n t hesummary j udgment order . I n any event , however , our r evi ew of t hePr of i t Share Agreement per suades us t hat summary j udgment waspr oper even wi t hout t hi s addi t i onal evi dence.

12Par agr aph E. 2 pr ovi des i n i t s ent i r et y:

-22-


23/36

suggest t hat t he f i r st sent ence of Par agr aph E. 2, whi ch

speci f i cal l y names Ri ver a ( pr of essi onal l y known as "Thi l o") i n a

l i st of LT pr oducer s whose ser vi ces LT must pr ovi de t o t he Label ,

evi nces an i nt ent t o benef i t at l east Ri ver a. Mor eover , t he

pl ai nt i f f s ci t e Par agr aph E. 2 t o suppor t t hei r cont ent i on t hat "t he

Pr of i t Shar i ng Agr eement st at es i t wi l l pay sums cer t ai n t o [ t ] he

LT Producers. " But Par agr aph E. 2 i mposes no obl i gat i on on Machete

t o pay t hese r oyal t i es. I nst ead, i t t wi ce st at es t hat LT i s

r esponsi bl e f or t he pr oducer s' compensat i on: "LT wi l l be sol el y

r esponsi bl e f or compensat i ng t he LT pr oducers" and any ot her

pr oducer s i t engages, and agai n, "Any addi t i onal f undi ng r equi r ed

f or t he LT pr oducer ser vi ces shal l be pr ovi ded di r ect l y and sol ey

LT and i t s Pr i nci pal [ Sal dana] wi l l al so f ur ni sh t heser vi ces of t he pr oducers known as t he Underage, Tai ny,Nal es, A & A, and Thi l o [ Ri ver a] ( t he "LT Pr oducer s" ) t ot he Label , pur suant t o wor k f or hi r e agr eement s s i gned

bet ween LT and t he LT Pr oducers. The LT pr oducers maywor k on pr oj ect s out si de of t he Label so l ong as suchwor k does not i nt er f er e wi t h LT' s del i ver y obl i gat i onsher eunder and so l ong as Label pr oj ect s ar e gi venpr i or i t y over any out si de pr oj ect s. LT wi l l be sol el yr esponsi bl e f or compensat i ng the LT pr oducer s or engagi ngand compensat i ng any other producers i t may engage t oassi st wi t h t he r ecor di ngs her eunder , i ncl udi ng wi t houtl i mi t at i on t he pr oducer ser vi ces of t he pr oducerpr of essi onal l y known as Tunes [ Cabr er a] . Not wi t hst andi ngt he f or egoi ng, i t i s t he i nt ent i on of t he par t i es t hatt he LT pr oducer s shal l be compensat ed on a f l at f ee basi s

of up to Two Thousand Dol l ar s ( $2, 000. 00) per t r ack whi chwi l l be t aken f r om t he r el evant ar t i st ' s aut hor i zedr ecor di ng budget or a r oyal t y of t hr ee per cent ( 3%) i ft he ar t i st agr eement pr ovi des f or an al l - i n r oyal t y, t obe deci ded on a case by case basi s. Any addi t i onalf undi ng r equi r ed f or t he LT pr oducer ser vi ces shal l bepr ovi ded di r ect l y and sol ey [ si c] by LT and or Pr i nci pal .

-23-


24/36

[ si c] by LT and or [ Sal dana] . " Ther e i s t hus not hi ng i n Par agr aph

E. 2 t hat even est abl i shes a dut y on Machet e' s par t i nur i ng t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s ' benef i t , much l ess an i nt ent f or t he pl ai nt i f f s t o

benef i t . To t he cont r ar y, Par agr aph E. 2 makes cl ear t hat any such

obl i gat i on r est s wi t h LT.

Par agr aphs H and R of t he Agr eement al so f ai l t o support

t he pl ai nt i f f s ' t heory. 13 Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s aver t hat Ri ver a

"was ent i t l ed t o a shar e of LT' s pr of i t s st emmi ng f r om t hi s

agr eement " and " t o royal t i es f or hi s shar e of t he P' Al [ si c] Mundo

CD" under t hese t wo paragr aphs, nei t her paragr aph creat es any

cont r actual obl i gat i on as t o Ri ver a or any ot her pl ai nt i f f .

I nst ead, t hese par agr aphs gover n LT' s pr of i t s f r om t he newl y-

13Par agr aph H. 1, t i t l ed "Di st r i but i on of Pr of i t s, " pr ovi des i nper t i nent par t :

Machet e shal l pay LT f or t y ni ne per cent ( 49%) of t he

Label ' s Net Pr oceeds ( t he "LT Pr of i t ") , r et ai ni ng t hebal ance of Net Proceeds f or Machete' s own account . "NetPr oceeds" shal l mean al l i ncome r ecei ved f r om t heexpl oi t at i on of t he Label ' s pr oduct s t hr oughout t heTer r i t or y ( i ncl udi ng l i cense i ncome pur suant t o par agr aphF bel ow) l ess [ ] aggr egat e cost s and f ees . . . .

Par agr aph R i n t ur n pr ovi des i n per t i nent par t :

I n consi der at i on of Pr i nci pal ' s pr oducer ser vi ces i nconnect i on wi t h t he Mast ers embodi ed on t he al bum "Pa' lMundo" ( t he f i r st "WY Al bum") embodyi ng t he per f ormances

of t he ar t i st s J uan Lui s Mor er a Luna and Ll andel Vegi l l aMal ave, col l ect i vel y pr of essi onal l y known as Wi si n andYandel ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as WY) , Machete her ebygr ant s t o LT a par t i ci pat i on of 25% of Machet e' s NetProceeds pur suant t o paragr aph H, above, and a 25%ownershi p i nt erest i n such Mast ers, commenci ng on J anuary1, 2007 and wi t h r espect t o sal es af t er such dat e.

-24-


25/36

cr eat ed Label and f r omt he 2005 "Pa' l Mundo" CD and, t her ef or e, do

not evi nce any i nt ent t o benef i t t he pl ai nt i f f s.

The f i nal provi si on of t he Agreement upon whi ch t he

pl ai nt i f f s r el y i s Par agr aph K. 2, t i t l ed "LT' s Ser vi ces. " I t

pr ovi des:

LT wi l l f ur ni sh t he ser vi ces of Pr i nci pal andt he LT Pr oducer s ( pr ovi ded t hat Pr i nci palshal l be the sol e or pr i mar y pr oducer ) t opr oduce ten ( 10) r ecor di ngs of var i ous Machet eart i s ts ( i . e. , non Label ar t i s t ' s [s i c] ) uponMachet e' s r equest . Machet e wi l l pay t heappl i cabl e LT Producer s an advance i n theamount of Four Thousand Dol l ars ( $4, 000. 00)upon Del i ver y of each such t r ack to Macheteand a r oyal t y of up t o 3% t o be taken out oft he ar t i st r oyal t y and r ecoupabl e f r om t heaf orement i oned advance and r ecor di ng budget .Such amounts shal l be f unded by Machet e sol ong as t hey are wi t hi n t he maxi mumaut hor i zedA & R budget s set f or t h her ei n. Ot herwi se LTshal l f und such amount s.

Unl i ke t he other par agr aphs, t hi s par agr aph expr essl y cont empl at es

t he payment of r oyal t i es t o t he "LT Pr oducer s" ( a gr oup def i ned i n

Par agr aph E. 2 and i ncl udi ng Ri ver a) by Machet e rat her t han by LT.

Never t hel ess, i t i mposes no act ual obl i gat i on on Machet e' s par t t o

empl oy t hese pr oducer s on non- Label pr oj ect s; i nst ead, i t r equi r es

LT t o f ur ni sh t he pr oducer s "upon Machet e' s r equest . "

The pl ai nt i f f s have not al l eged t hat t he Er r e XI songs

wer e pr oduced under t hi s pr ovi si on f or a non- Label ar t i st . To t he

cont r ar y, t he par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he Er r e XI ar t i st s wer e

si gned t o t he Label . Readi ng t he cont r act i n i t s ent i r et y as we

must , and const r ui ng i t " t o gi ve r easonabl e ef f ect t o each of i t s

-25-


26/36

pr ovi si ons, " J . A. Sul l i van Cor p. v. Commonweal t h, 494 N. E. 2d 374,

378 ( Mass. 1986) , we concl ude t hat t hi s case, i nvol vi ng Label

r ecor di ngs, i s gover ned by Par agr aph E. 2 r at her t han K. 2. As

di scussed above, t hat pr ovi si on of t he Agr eement l eaves LT "sol el y

r esponsi bl e" f or pr oducer r oyal t i es and t hus of f er s no suppor t f or

t he pl ai nt i f f s' t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y cl ai m agai nst t he UMG

def endant s.

Apar t f r om t he t ext of t he Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement , t he

pl ai nt i f f s al so poi nt t o var i ous i t ems of ext r i nsi c evi dence i n an

ef f or t t o bol st er t hei r t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y cl ai ms t i ed t o t he

Agr eement . We concl ude, however , t hat t hi s ext r atextual evi dence

- - an exper t wi t ness' s wr i t t en opi ni on i nt er pr et i ng t he Agr eement ,

deposi t i on t est i mony of a Machet e empl oyee, a l et t er f r om Machet e

t o LT al l egi ng br each, and a ser i es of i nt er nal emai l s i n whi ch UMG

st at es t hat i t wi l l be admi ni st er i ng mechani cal r oyal t i es f or t he

Er r e XI al bum- - cannot be i nt r oduced t o cont r adi ct t he unambi guous

l anguage of t he Agreement .

Under Massachuset t s cont r act l aw, "ext r i nsi c evi dence may

be used as an i nt er pr et i ve gui de onl y af t er t he j udge or t he cour t

det er mi nes that t he cont r act i s ambi guous on i t s f ace or as

appl i ed. " Bank v. Ther mo El ement al I nc. , 888 N. E. 2d 897, 908

( Mass. 2008) ; see al so Nat ' l Tax I nst . , I nc. v. Topnot ch at St owe

Resor t & Spa, 388 F. 3d 15, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( " [ E] xt r i nsi c

evi dence may be consi dered i f l anguage i s ambi guous but not

-26-


27/36

ot her wi se ( and whet her l anguage i s ambi guous i s a quest i on f or t he

j udge) . " ) . The pl ai nt i f f s f ai l t o per suade us of any ambi gui t y i n

t he l anguage of Par agr aph E. 2 of t he Agr eement , whi ch t wi ce st ates

t hat LT i s sol el y responsi bl e f or t he compensat i on of i t s

pr oducer s. We t her ef or e see no need t o r esort t o ext r i nsi c

evi dence i n our i nt er pr et at i on of t he Agr eement .

Even i f we were t o do so, hewi ng t o a more l i beral

appr oach under whi ch ext r i nsi c evi dence may be consi dered " t o

demonst r at e t hat a t er m i s vague or ambi guous i n t he f i r st pl ace, "

Smar t v. Gi l l et t e Co. Long- Ter m Di sabi l i t y Pl an, 70 F. 3d 173, 179

( 1st Ci r . 1995) , our concl usi on woul d r emai n t he same. Of t he f our

i t ems of ext r i nsi c evi dence i dent i f i ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s, t wo - -

t he Machet e empl oyee' s deposi t i on t est i mony and t he l et t er f r om

Machet e t o LT al l egi ng br each - - concer n onl y the cont r act ual

r el at i onshi p between Machete and LT and seemi ngl y have no rel evance

t o t he pl ai nt i f f s ' cont r act ual r i ght s. 14 Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s

ci t e t hei r exper t wi t ness' s opi ni on f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat

"payment of mechani cal r oyal t i es by t he l abel [ ] i s a st andar d

14The deposed empl oyee t est i f i ed about a st at ement f r omMachet e' s pr esi dent t hat Machet e woul d not pay Sal dana t he money hewas owed, and di d not ment i on any money owed t o t he pl ai nt i f f s i nt hi s case. Si mi l ar l y, al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat the

l et t er f r om Machet e t o LT al l eges br each on t he par t of LT' spr oducer s, i t i n f act onl y al l eges a br each of LT' s obl i gat i onsunder t he Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement : i t st at es i n per t i nent par t t hatLT' s producer s have pr ovi ded ser vi ces on non- Label pr oj ect s " t hathave mat er i al l y i nt er f er ed wi t h t he del i ver y obl i gat i ons of LT' sBenj ami n as pr ohi bi t ed pur suant t o Sect i on E( 2) " of t he Pr of i tShare Agr eement .

-27-


28/36

pr act i ce, " t he exper t ' s anal ysi s f ocuses pr i mar i l y on anot her

sect i on of t he Agr eement , Par agr aph T, concerni ng whi ch t he

pl ai nt i f f s r ai se onl y a cur sor y appel l at e ar gument . Mor eover ,

al t hough gener al i ndust r y pr act i ces may be hel pf ul i n r esol vi ng

cont r act ual ambi gui t i es, see, e. g. , C. A. Acqui si t i on Newco, LLC v.

DHL Expr ess ( USA) , I nc. , 696 F. 3d 109, 114 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , we do

not t hi nk t hi s t est i mony al one suf f i ces t o cr eat e an ambi gui t y i n

t he pl ai n l anguage of Par agr aph E. 2. See Smart , 70 F. 3d at 180

( " I n no event may ext r i nsi c evi dence be empl oyed to cont r adi ct

expl i ci t cont r act l anguage or t o dr ai n an agr eement ' s t ext of al l

cont ent save i nk and paper . " ) .

As f or t he i nt er nal emai l s i n whi ch UMG st at es t hat i t

wi l l be admi ni st er i ng mechani cal r oyal t i es f or t he Er r e XI al bum,

we t hi nk t hemt oo sl ender a r eed to render t he Agr eement ambi guous

as t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' st at us. Al t hough t hese emai l s may i ndeed

evi nce some obl i gat i on on t he par t of t he UMG def endant s, t hey were

sent a year af t er Machete and LT si gned t he Pr of i t Share Agr eement

and do not compel t he concl usi on t hat t he Agr eement was t he or i gi n

of t he def endant s' obl i gat i on. We f i nd t hese emai l s i nsuf f i ci ent

t o i mpugn t he pl ai n l anguage of Par agr aph E. 2, r equi r i ng LT t o

compensate i t s producer s, and t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he Pr of i t

Shar e Agreement i mposed no dut y on the UMG def endant s t o compensat e

t he pl ai nt i f f s .

-28-


29/36

I n a f i nal ef f or t t o establ i sh t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y

st at us, t he pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hat t hey "gave consi der at i on" f or

t he Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement , f ocusi ng speci f i cal l y on Ri ver a' s

r enegot i at i on of hi s 2006 pr oducer agr eement i n t he wake of t he

Prof i t Shar e Agr eement . Whet her Ri ver a gave consi der at i on f or t he

Agr eement t o occur i s a separate quest i on, however , f r omwhether he

was an i nt ended t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y of t he Agr eement . J ust as

per sonal consi der at i on on t he par t of a t hi r d par t y i s not

necessar y t o est abl i sh t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y st at us, see 13

Wi l l i st on on Cont r act s 37: 28 ( 4t h ed. 2013) , so t oo i s i t not

suf f i ci ent . Because t he pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o show t hat t he

Pr of i t Shar e Agr eement was i nt ended f or t hei r benef i t , t hei r t hi r d-

par t y benef i ci ar y cl ai ms f ai l .

3. Miscellany

Ot her ar gument at i ve r i f f s emer ge i nt er mi t t ent l y f r omt he

pl ai nt i f f s' of t en di ssonant br i ef i ng. The pl ai nt i f f s appear t o

have cont ended bel ow t hat Par agr aph T of t he Prof i t Share

Agr eement , by t r ansf er r i ng " [ a] l l ar t i st cont r act s owned or

cont r ol l ed by Mas Fl ow, LT, [ or ] any af f i l i at ed compani es" t o t he

new Label , const i t ut ed an assi gnment of LT' s cont r act ual dut i es t o

Machete. On appeal , however , t hey onl y dedi cate a si ngl e sent ence

of t hei r r epl y br i ef t o t hi s ar gument , st at i ng mer el y t hat t hi s

par agr aph "al ong wi t h t he ot her ci t ed sect i ons i n pl ai nt i f f s' br i ef

cl ear l y demonst r at e[ s] evi dence of an i nt ent i on t o benef i t

-29-


30/36

pl ai nt i f f s. " Wi t h no f ur t her el abor at i on and no i dent i f i ed

evi dence cont r adi ct i ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat "onl y

Ger r y Capo Her nandez' s cont r act was act ual l y t r ansf er r ed t o t he

Label under t hi s pr ovi si on, and [ Capo] i s no l onger a Pl ai nt i f f i n

t hi s case, " we deemt hi s cur sor y ar gument wai ved and do not assess

i t s mer i t . See Tower , 326 F. 3d at 299; Zanni no, 895 F. 2d at 17.

We al so r ej ect t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai mt hat t hey ar e "j oi nt

aut hor s of t he di sput ed songs" and t her ef or e ent i t l ed t o

"r oyal t i es, mechani cal or ot her wi se" f r omMachet e. As di scussed i n

sect i on A. 1 supr a, t hese j oi nt aut hor shi p al l egat i ons wer e

i nsuf f i ci ent l y pl eaded bel ow and cannot now be devel oped f or t he

f i r st t i me on appeal . So, t oo, wi t h r espect t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'

embr yoni c t heor y t hat t he "Label " cr eat ed by t he Pr of i t Shar e

Agreement was a par t ner shi p bet ween Machet e and LT and t hat t he

par t ner s ar e t her ef or e j oi nt l y l i abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s. The

pl ai nt i f f s nei t her al l eged such a par t ner shi p i n t hei r compl ai nt

nor r ai sed t hi s t heor y i n t hei r opposi t i on t o summar y j udgment

bel ow, and t heref ore cannot do so now. See I ver son, 452 F. 3d at

102; McCoy, 950 F. 2d at 22.

4. Motion for Reconsideration

Unl i ke t hei r copyr i ght cl ai ms, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not

al l ege t hat newl y di scover ed evi dence war r ant ed r econsi der at i on of

t hei r cont r act cl ai ms; i nstead, t hey cl ai m t hat t he di str i ct

cour t ' s ent r y of summary j udgment was based on a "mani f est er r or of

-30-


31/36

l aw" and t hat t he cour t t her ef or e abused i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng

t hei r mot i on f or r econsi der at i on. See FDI C v. Wor l d Uni v. I nc. ,

978 F. 2d 10, 16 (1st Ci r . 1992) ( "Mot i ons under Rul e 59( e) must

ei t her cl ear l y est abl i sh a mani f est er r or of l aw or must pr esent

newl y di scovered evi dence. " ) . Because we have di scer ned no l egal

er r or , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n denyi ng

t he mot i on f or r econsi der at i on.

C. Lanham Act Claim

The pl ai nt i f f s next aver t hat t he di st r i ct cour t " f ai l ed

t o addr ess t he Lanham Act cl ai ms . . . appar ent l y due t o t he

Cour t ' s f i ndi ng of no r egi st r at i on. " I n f act , however , t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s supposed over si ght i s suscept i bl e t o a mor e

st r ai ght f or war d expl anat i on. Except f or a si ngl e r ef er ence i n t he

f i r st par agr aph ( t i t l ed "Nat ur e of t he Act i on") , whi ch descr i bes

the pl ai nt i f f s' sui t as par t i al l y "a ci vi l act i on f or . . . f al se

desi gnat i on of or i gi n under t he Lanham Act , " t he pl ai nt i f f s'

compl ai nt nei t her l i st s a count under t he LanhamAct nor makes any

ot her al l usi on t o a Lanham Act cl ai m. Nor do we f i nd any ment i on

of a Lanham Act cl ai m i n any of t he pl ai nt i f f s ' ot her di st r i ct

cour t f i l i ngs save f or a l one sent ence i n t hei r Mar ch 2012 mot i on

f or r econsi der at i on. 15 The mer e ment i on of a Lanham Act cl ai m i n

t he openi ng par agr aph of t he pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt i s not enough t o

15The mot i on f or r econsi der at i on st at es, "Pl ai nt i f f s al sopr oper l y pl eaded a cl ai m pur suant t o t he Lanham Act , whi chdef endant has not addr essed and shoul d not have been di smi ssed. "

-31-


32/36

make out such a cl ai m as par t of t he pl ai nt i f f s' cause of act i on,

cf . Col l , 642 F. 3d at 901, l et al one t o set f or t h "suf f i ci ent

f actual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue, t o ' st at e a cl ai mf or r el i ef t hat

i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace, ' " Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678

( 2009) ( quot i ng Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 570

( 2007) ) . We t hus r epeat what i s by now a f ami l i ar l ei t mot i f i n

t hi s opi ni on: havi ng f ai l ed t o adequat el y r ai se t hi s cl ai m bef or e

t he di st r i ct cour t , t he pl ai nt i f f s cannot now r ai se i t on appeal .

See I ver son, 452 F. 3d at 102; McCoy, 950 F. 2d at 22.

D. Procedural Issues

On appeal , t he pl ai nt i f f s al so chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s adver se r ul i ngs on t hei r mot i on f or addi t i onal di scover y

and t hei r mot i on t o t r ansf er t he case t o Puer t o Ri co. We r evi ew

bot h r ul i ngs f or abuse of di scr et i on. See Ecker v. Uni t ed St at es,

575 F. 3d 70, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( t r ansf er ) ; Ayal a- Ger ena v. Br i st ol

Myer s- Squi bb Co. , 95 F. 3d 86, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( addi t i onal

di scover y) .

1. Motion for Additional Discovery

Not l ong af t er f i l i ng t hei r opposi t i on t o t he def endant s'

mot i on f or summar y j udgment , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on under

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( d) , seeki ng an ext ensi on of t i me i n whi ch t o

depose Machet e' s keeper of r ecor ds and i t s f or mer pr esi dent . The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on, f ol l owi ng t he t r i par t i t e

-32-


33/36

anal ysi s set f or t h i n Ri ver a- Tor r es v. Rey- Her nndez, 502 F. 3d 7,

10 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) :

A l i t i gant who seeks t o i nvoke [ Rul e 56( d) ]must act wi t h due di l i gence t o show t hat hi s

pr edi cament f i t s wi t hi n i t s conf i nes. To t hatend, t he l i t i gant must submi t t o t he t r i alcour t an af f i davi t or ot her aut hor i t at i vedocument showi ng ( i ) good cause f or hi si nabi l i t y to have di scover ed or mar shal l ed t henecessar y f act s ear l i er i n t he pr oceedi ngs;( i i ) a pl ausi bl e basi s f or bel i evi ng t hataddi t i onal f act s pr obabl y exi st and can ber et r i eved wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me; and ( i i i )an expl anat i on of how t hose f act s, i fcol l ected, wi l l suf f i ce t o def eat t he pendi ngsummar y j udgment mot i on.

I n t he di str i ct cour t ' s est i mat i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed bot h t he

f i r st and t hi r d pr ongs.

We need not address t he "good cause" prong, because t he

pl ai nt i f f s' appeal i s easi l y r esol ved under t he t hi r d pr ong. The

pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o show how t he i nf or mat i on t o be obt ai ned

f r omt he deposi t i ons woul d have def eat ed t he def endant s' mot i on f or

summar y j udgment . Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s now i mpl y t hat t he

deposi t i on t est i mony woul d be used f or a number of pur poses, t hei r

avowed pur pose i n t he Rul e 56( d) mot i on bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t

coul d har dl y have been cl ear er : " [ P] l ai nt i f f s do not wi sh t o go on

a f i shi ng expedi t i on, t hey mer el y wi sh t o aut hent i cat e document s

al r eady pr oduced. " As t he di st r i ct cour t recogni zed, t he

def endant s made cl ear i n t hei r opposi t i on t hat t hey onl y chal l enged

t he aut hent i ci t y of one of t he f our document s i dent i f i ed i n t he

pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on. That document , appar ent l y an August 2007

-33-


34/36

i nvoi ce f r omMas Fl ow t o Fr eddy Mont al vo f or t en songs not named i n

t he pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt , makes no r ef er ence t o UMG or Machet e.

Even assumi ng t he document ' s admi ssi bi l i t y, t he pl ai nt i f f s have

f ur ni shed no expl anat i on f or how i t woul d mi l i t at e agai nst summar y

j udgment .

We t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wel l

wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of i t s di scret i on i n denyi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s'

Rul e 56( d) mot i on f or addi t i onal di scover y. Si mi l ar l y, t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n denyi ng t he

pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or r econsi der at i on on t hi s i ssue, as t hat

mot i on mer el y rehashed t he pl ai nt i f f s' or i gi nal ar gument and

i dent i f i ed no l egal or f actual er r or war r ant i ng r econsi der at i on.

See $23, 000 i n U. S. Cur r ency, 356 F. 3d at 165 n. 9 ( "The repet i t i on

of pr evi ous ar gument s i s not suf f i ci ent t o pr evai l on a Rul e 59( e)

mot i on. ") .

2. Motion to Transfer

Al so dur i ng t he course of t he summar y j udgment

pr oceedi ngs, t he pl ai nt i f f s moved t o t r ansf er t hi s case t o t he

Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co and consol i dat e i t wi t h a par al l el l awsui t

t hat t hey had r ecent l y f i l ed i n t hat di st r i ct. 16 The pl ai nt i f f s

sought t r ansf er of t he ent i r e case, i ncl udi ng cl ai ms agai nst t he

16The Puer t o Ri co l awsui t , f i l ed on August 12, 2011, was l at erdi smi ssed due t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' f ai l ur e t o ser ve pr ocess wi t hi nt he 120- day t er m pr ovi ded by Fed. R. Ci v. P. 4( m) . See Mar t i nez-Al i cea v. LT' s Benj ami n Recor ds, I nc. , No. 3: 11- cv- 01795- CCC( D. P. R. J an. 13, 2012) .

-34-


35/36

Daddy Yankee and LT def endant s ( no l onger part i es t o thi s appeal )

pr evi ousl y di smi ssed f or l ack of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on i n i t s summar y j udgment or der ,

r easoni ng t hat i t was t oo l at e f or t he pl ai nt i f f s t o r equest

t r ansf er as t o t hose def endant s who had al r eady obt ai ned di smi ssal

f or want of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. Wi t h r espect t o t he UMG

def endant s, t he cour t f ound no l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on and t her ef or e

concl uded t hat t r ansf er was i nappr opr i at e under 28 U. S. C. 1631,

whi ch pr ovi des f or t r ansf er when " t her e i s a want of j ur i sdi ct i on"

and t r ansf er i s "i n t he i nt er est of j ust i ce. "

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on. As t her e

was mani f est l y no "want of j ur i sdi ct i on" wi t h r espect t o t he UMG

def endant s ( t he onl y remai ni ng def endant s) , t r ansf er under 1631

was i nappr opr i at e. See Subsal ve USA Cor p. v. Wat son Mf g. , I nc. ,

462 F. 3d 41, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng t hat 1631 " f ur ni shes

a cour t t hat l acks j ur i sdi ct i on over an act i on wi t h a choi ce

between t r ansf er and di smi ssal " ( emphasi s added) ) . Moreover ,

t r ansf er of t hi s case woul d i n any event not be " i n t he i nt er est of

j ust i ce" gi ven our concl usi on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r

i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment t o t he UMG def endant s. Cf . Br i t el l v.

Uni t ed St at es, 318 F. 3d 70, 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( "[ I ] f an act i on or

appeal i s f anci f ul or f r i vol ous, i t i s i n t he i nt erest of j ust i ce

t o di smi ss i t r at her t han t o keep i t on l i f e suppor t ( wi t h t he

i nevi t abl e r esul t t hat t he t r ansf er ee cour t wi l l pul l t he

-35-


36/36

pl ug) . ") . 17 We t her ef or e f i nd no abuse of di scr et i on i n ei t her t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t hi s mot i on or i t s subsequent deni al of

t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or r econsi der at i on. See $23, 000 i n U. S.

Cur r ency, 356 F. 3d at 165 n. 9.

III.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we affirm t he di s tr i ct court ' s

orders gr ant i ng the def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment ,

denyi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i ons f or t r ansf er and addi t i onal

di scover y, and denyi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on f or r econsi der at i on.

17I n l i ght of t he vol unt ar y di smi ssal on appeal of t he ot herdef endant s, over whom t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat i t l ackedper sonal j ur i sdi ct i on, we need not addr ess ei t her of t he t woquest i ons l ef t unr esol ved i n Ci mon v. Gaf f ney, 401 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) : whet her 1631 "pr ovi des f or t r ansf er s onl y wher e a f eder alcour t l acks subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, or whet her i t al so appl i eswher e ot her t ypes of j ur i sdi ct i on ar e l acki ng, i ncl udi ng per sonalj ur i sdi ct i on, " i d. at 7 n. 21, and whet her 1631 per mi t s " t het r ansf er of some but not al l cl ai ms i n an act i on, " i d. at 7 n. 20,so t hat t he cour t coul d have t r ansf er r ed t he cl ai ms agai nst t heother def endant s but not t he cl ai ms agai nst t he UMG def endant s.

alicea v. ayala, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents