Terrence Burns, M.D. John Zoll v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc. Universal City Studies, Inc. McA Inc., 108 F.3d 329, 2d Cir. (1997)

108 F.
3d 329
NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED

AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT
STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY
CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR
RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Terrence BURNS, M.D.; John Zoll, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
IMAGINE FILMS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; Universal City
Studies,
Inc.; MCA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 96-7785.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 6, 1997.
APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS:DAVID O. CARSON (Richard

Dannay, Schwab Goldberg Price & Dannay, New York, New York,
Kenneth W. Africano, Diane C. Piotrowski, Damon & Morey, Buffalo,
New York, of counsel ).
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES:JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY (Paul B.
Zuydhoek, David S. Teske, Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber,
Buffalo, New York, of counsel ).
PRESENT: ELLSWORTH A. VAN GRAAFEILAND, PIERRE N.
LEVAL, JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it
hereby is VACATED AND REMANDED to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with this order. In light of our decision on the merits, we
deny the plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38, for attorney's fees
and costs.
3
Plaintiffs Terrence Burns, M.D. and John Zoll brought this copyright
infringement action in 1992, claiming that they collaborated on two screenplays
about firefighters which they sent to Anthony Yerkovich, a California
screenwriter. Plaintiffs entered into a series of agreements in 1988 and 1989
("Submission Agreements") in connection with the submission of their
screenplays to Yerkovich.
The Submission Agreements provide that Anthony Yerkovich Productions

("AYP") will read the material submitted, and, if such material is used, it will
pay the owner the reasonable value of the material. By their terms, the
Submission Agreements inure to the benefit of AYP, together with "any
company with which [AYP is] a party to an agreement for the production or
financing of motion pictures or television programs and ... [AYP's] officers,
agents, servants, employees, stockholders and representatives, as well as the
officers, agents, servants, employees, stockholders and clients of the abovereferenced other companies." The Submission Agreements also include the
following relevant provisions:
5 we are unable to agree as to the reasonable value [of the material], the amount
If
will be conclusively determined by a panel of three arbitrators, one to be selected by
each of us and they to select a third, all of whom shall be persons well acquainted
with the entertainment industry.... The arbitrators' decision shall be controlled by the
terms of this agreement, and [plaintiffs] agree that the amount of any award by said
arbitrators may not exceed the minimum amount which would be payable for such
material under the Writers Guild of America Basic Agreement if there were an
employment agreement between you and [plaintiffs] for the preparation of such
material.
6
[Plaintiffs]
agree that any claim arising in connection with the subject matter of this
agreement must be brought within six months after your first use of the material in
question and that the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply to all such
claims. Any claim not brought within said six-month period is hereby barred....1
7
[Plaintiffs']
sole right and remedy with regard to any unauthorized use by you of the
material submitted herewith will be to submit the question of the value of the
material appropriated without [plaintiffs'] consent to arbitration as aforesaid, and
[plaintiffs] shall have no other rights or remedies against you in such regard.
Plaintiffs contend that, thereafter, defendants released the movie Backdraft, a
Plaintiffs contend that, thereafter, defendants released the movie Backdraft, a

film about firefighters, and that the screenplay for Backdraft used significant
portions of plaintiffs' original, copyrighted screenplays.
In December 1994, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio issued a report

recommending that, due to defendants' discovery abuses, the issue of access to
plaintiffs' screenplays should be resolved against defendants. Magistrate Judge
Foschio stated that the defendants' abuses were egregious enough to warrant
striking the defendants' answer, and he warned that if defendants did not
thereafter fully comply with plaintiffs' document requests, "plaintiffs may, if
necessary, move the court for further sanctions."
10
On June 5, 1995, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to strike defendants'

answer, based upon defendants' alleged disobedience of the court's discovery
orders. On June 23, 1995, defendants sought leave to amend their answers to
include affirmative defenses based on the Submission Agreements. Although
the defendants had had the Submission Agreements in their possession since
July 1992, they claimed to have only discovered the documents, in the office of
a former associate at one of defendants' prior law firms, in April 1995. On
October 25, 1995, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or stay this action,
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ("FAA"), on the
ground that the Submission Agreements require plaintiffs to submit their entire
copyright infringement claim to arbitration.
11
On February 16, 1996, Magistrate Judge Foschio issued reports recommending,

inter alia, that the plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer should be
granted and that the defendants' motions to dismiss and/or stay this proceeding
and to amend their answers should be denied on the grounds that the instant
action does not fall within the arbitration clause contained in the Submission
Agreements or, in the alternative, the defendants had waived their right to
arbitration.
12
On June 3, 1996, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's

recommendations. This appeal only raises the question of whether the district
court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss and/or stay this proceeding.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Fed.
R.App. P. 38, on the ground that the defendant's appeal is frivolous.
13
We affirm the order of the district court insofar as it found that the Submission
Agreements did not provide for the parties to arbitrate the question of liability
for copyright infringement. However, because we believe that the Submission
Agreements do provide for the parties to arbitrate the question of damages,
once the question of liability has been established, and because we conclude
that the defendants have not waived their right to arbitrate this question, we
vacate the district court's decision and remand the cause to the district court.
The plaintiff's Rule 38 motion is also denied.
14
(A) Applicability of the Submission Agreements.
15
We review de novo the district court's determination of the scope of the

arbitration clauses contained in the Submission Agreement. See Leadertex, Inc.
v. Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp., 67 F.3d 20, 27 (2d Cir.1995). We will
resolve "any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues ... in favor of
arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract
language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to
arbitrability." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S.
1, 24-25 1983); see also McMahan Sec. Co. L.P. v. Forum Capital Markets
L.P., 35 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir.1994). "Another way of expressing this is to say
that arbitration must not be denied unless a court is positive that the clause it is
examining does not cover the asserted dispute." Spear, Leeds & Kellogg v.
Central Life Assurance Co., 85 F.3d 21, 28 (2d Cir.1996). However,
notwithstanding the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, that policy "may
not extend the reach of arbitration beyond the intended scope of the clause
providing for it." Id.
16
In the instant case, the district court found that the agreement to arbitrate
contained in the Submission Agreements only applied if the defendants
admitted that they had used plaintiffs' work. Because in this case the defendants
obviously did not admit using the plaintiffs' work, the district court found that
the parties did not agree to arbitrate any aspect of their dispute.
17
We believe that the district court read the arbitration clauses of the Submission
Agreements too narrowly. While we agree with the district court that the
question of whether the defendants used the plaintiffs' work without permission
was not to be arbitrated, nothing in the language of the Submission Agreements
suggests that the defendants must admit to using the plaintiffs' work for the
question of the reasonable value of that work to be arbitrable.
18
We conclude, instead, that once the question of use has been decided--either
through litigation or through an admission of use--the Submission Agreements
require the question of damages to be decided by arbitration, if the parties
cannot agree on the reasonable value of the work. Accordingly, we disagree
with the district court insofar as it found that the Submission Agreements did
not apply at all to the instant dispute.

19
(B) Waiver of Arbitration Rights.
20
We review de novo the district court's determination with respect to "[t]he

question of whether a party's pretrial conduct amounts to waiver of arbitration."
Leadertex, 67 F.3d at 25. We review the factual determinations upon which a
district court predicates its finding of waiver for clear error. Id. "Any doubts
concerning whether there has been a waiver are resolved in favor of
arbitration." Id.
21
While litigation of substantial material issues may amount to waiver, see

Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd. v. Manhattan Indus., Inc., 754 F.2d 457, 461 (2d
Cir.1985), "delay in seeking arbitration does not create a waiver unless it
prejudices the opposing party." Leadertex, 67 F.3d at 25. Furthermore,
"however unjustifiable [a party's] conduct, there can be no waiver unless that
conduct has resulted in prejudice to the other party." Id. at 26. Pretrial expense
and delay, "without more, do not constitute prejudice sufficient to support a
finding of waiver." Id.
22
Waiver is "the intentional relinquishment of a known right." United States v.

RePass, 688 F.2d 154, 158 (2d Cir.1982). Upon reviewing the record, we
conclude that it is clear that defendants did not know that the Submission
Agreements permitted them to arbitrate this dispute until very shortly before
they requested arbitration. Arbitration is so clearly in defendants' interest that it
is difficult to believe any other account of the matter. Furthermore, given the
fact that plaintiffs themselves signed the Submission Agreements, while
defendants are merely third-party beneficiaries under the agreements, and the
fact that plaintiffs may themselves have contributed to the delay in seeking
arbitration (by failing to produce the Submission Agreements in discovery), it
makes little sense, in our view, to penalize the defendants for their failure to
raise their arbitration claim earlier.
23
In addition, while there is no doubt that the pretrial expenses and delay in this
case prior to defendants' demand for arbitration were substantial, we conclude
that here, where the only issue to be decided by the arbitrator is the question of
damages, the plaintiffs have not shown prejudice sufficient to support a finding
of waiver. The pretrial expense and delay in this case are attributable, at least in
part, to litigation on the question of liability, rather than the question of
damages. See Kramer v. Hammond, 943 F.2d 176, 180 (existence of nonarbitrable issues "more than justified the litigation that preceded the demand for
arbitration"). Furthermore, there has not been any substantial litigation on the
merits of the damages question. See Sweater Bee, 754 F.2d at 761.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred when it found that defendants
waived their right to arbitrate the question of damages.
24
The district court's sanctions order, purporting to strike the defendants'

answers, was not a part of this appeal,2 and therefore was not directly or fully
considered by this Court. Accordingly, in entering this order, we intimate no
view on the decision of the district court to strike the answers and we leave for
another day any possible consideration of that question in any appeal that may
be filed in the future.
25
If and when the district court determines on remand that a judgment on the
question of liability shall enter for plaintiffs, the court shall enter a judgment to
that effect, which judgment shall include a direction that the question of
damages shall be resolved pursuant to the terms of the Submission Agreements,
either by the agreement of the parties or by arbitration.
26
We have considered all of the plaintiffs' remaining arguments on appeal and

find them to be without merit.
27
Accordingly, the order of the District Court is VACATED AND REMANDED

to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
We read this six-month limitation as a notice provision, requiring the plaintiffs

to notify AYP of any claim within six months after "first use". The plaintiffs
complied with this provision by providing notice to AYP on July 16, 1991, two
months after the May 1991 release of Backdraft. Cf. Davies v. Krasna, 14
Cal.3d 502, 512, 535 P.2d 1161, 1167 (1975) (breach of contract claim based
on use of literary property accrues not when the literary property is
incorporated into the defendant's script, but when the defendant's work is
publicly exhibited)
The defendants contested the order striking their answers and applied to the
district court for certification of that order for interlocutory appeal under 28
U.S.C. 1292. We have been informed by appellants, and appellees do not
contest, that the district court denied that application. See Appellants' Reply
Brief at 1, n. 1

Terrence Burns, M.D. John Zoll v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc. Universal City Studies, Inc. McA Inc., 108 F.3d 329, 2d Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terrence Burns, M.D. John Zoll v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc. Universal City Studies, Inc. McA Inc., 108 F.3d 329, 2d Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terrence Burns, M.D. John Zoll v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc. Universal City Studies, Inc. McA Inc., 108 F.3d 329, 2d Cir. (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

108 F.

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS:DAVID O. CARSON (Richard

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

The Submission Agreements provide that Anthony Yerkovich Productions

Plaintiffs contend that, thereafter, defendants released the movie Backdraft, a

In December 1994, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio issued a report

On June 5, 1995, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to strike defendants'

On February 16, 1996, Magistrate Judge Foschio issued reports recommending,

On June 3, 1996, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's

(A) Applicability of the Submission Agreements.

We review de novo the district court's determination of the scope of the

not apply at all to the instant dispute.

(B) Waiver of Arbitration Rights.

We review de novo the district court's determination with respect to "[t]he

While litigation of substantial material issues may amount to waiver, see

Waiver is "the intentional relinquishment of a known right." United States v.

The district court's sanctions order, purporting to strike the defendants'

We have considered all of the plaintiffs' remaining arguments on appeal and

Accordingly, the order of the District Court is VACATED AND REMANDED

We read this six-month limitation as a notice provision, requiring the plaintiffs

You might also like