Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York Corporation
- Decided
- February 22, 1990
- Docket
- 87-6146
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,784 timesAbrogated in part on other grounds (verified)Abrogated in part on other grounds (verified) · Himes v. Hadjadj
What later courts said
- holding that controlling statutory language can be sufficiently clear to start a limitations period running as a matter of law — Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd. (1999)
- holding that S-l Registration Statement is hearsay when used to prove the truth of the matters contained therein but admitting the S-l under the catch-all exception to hearsay rule — In Re Santa Fe Pacific Corp. Shareholder Litigation (1995)
- holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint 2 is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original” — Franklin v. Loancare Mortgage Servicing Company (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
This case involves the worldwide television rights to a number of Laurel and Hardy silent films (“the silent subjects”). Appellee’s predecessor in interest, Hal Roach, Inc., and appellant Richard Feiner and Company, Inc. (“Feiner & Co.”) entered into a written agreement to license the television rights to certain of the films to Feiner & Co. for a ten year period with an option to renew the license agreement for a second ten year term. Feiner & Co. subsequently exercised the option.
In 1984 appellee Hal Roach Studios, Inc. (“Hal Roach Studios”) filed a complaint [*1545] against Richard Feiner, [1] individually, and Feiner & Co. seeking a declaration that the licensing agreement would expire on or about September 27, 1986, and that Hal Roach Studios had valid copyrights to the films. Feiner & Co. answered, asserting affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed. Feiner & Co. sought reformation of the contracts based on mutual mistake. The mutual mistake alleged was that the parties had intended the license agreement to continue in effect until the copyrights to the silent subjects had expired and those subjects had entered the public domain. At the time the parties entered into the licensing agreement, the copyrights were due to expire around 1986. However, enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the duration of the copyrights well beyond that time.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York Corporation, 896 F.2d 1542 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.