Alicea v. MacHete Music , 744 F.3d 773 ( 2014 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1548
ANGEL MARTINEZ ALICEA, p/k/a Ruf El Fantaztiko;
FREDDY MONTALVO; RAUL RIVERA ROLDAN, p/k/a Thilo;
REYNALDO COLON VEGA, p/k/a Limits,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
JOSE DELGADO, p/k/a Buk Dollar;
GERRY CAPO HERNANDEZ, p/k/a Lionize,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MACHETE MUSIC, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc.;
UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees,
LT'S BENJAMIN RECORDS, INC.; FRANCISCO SALDANA, p/k/a Luny;
VICTOR CABRERA, p/k/a Tunes; RAMON AYALA, p/k/a Daddy Yankee;
LOS CANGRIS, INC.; EL CARTEL RECORDS, INC.,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Selya, and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
David A. Mech, with whom Law Offices of David A. Mech was on
brief, for appellants.
Linda M. Burrow, with whom Alison Mackenzie, Caldwell Leslie
& Proctor, PC, Daniel J. Cloherty, and Collora LLP were on brief,
for appellees.
March 7, 2014
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Over a century ago, Mark Twain
lamented that "[o]nly one thing is impossible for God: to find any
sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain, The
Complete Works of Mark Twain: Mark Twain's Notebook 381 (Albert
Bigelow Paine ed., 1935). We fear that Twain's deity would fare
little better with the tangled skein of copyright and contractual
claims presented by the plaintiffs in this case. Confining our
inquiry to the arguments seasonably raised before the district
court and to the factual background at the time of summary
judgment, we conclude that the district court did not err in
granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying
the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for reconsideration.
I.
The plaintiffs Angel Martinez Alicea ("Martinez"), Freddy
Montalvo, Raul Rivera Roldan ("Rivera"), and Reynaldo Colon Vega
("Colon") are Massachusetts-based producers of "reggaeton" music,
a musical genre originating in Puerto Rico and boasting such
diverse origins as reggae, hip hop, salsa, and meringue.1 This
lawsuit concerns seven songs ultimately released on an album
distributed by the defendants, allegedly infringing upon the
1
Two additional plaintiffs, Jose Delgado and Gerry Capo
Hernandez, were previously dismissed from the case.
-2-
plaintiffs' copyrights and breaching contracts to which the
plaintiffs claim to be parties and/or third-party beneficiaries.2
The events underlying this case date back to 2006, when
Francisco Saldana, a Puerto Rico-based reggaeton producer who with
Victor Cabrera founded a record label named "Mas Flow," began
looking for a new vocalist. After posting an online advertisement,
Saldana soon received numerous emails and recordings from Gerry
Capo Hernandez ("Capo"), a reggaeton performer then residing in
Springfield, Massachusetts. Saldana invited Capo to his recording
studio in Puerto Rico, where Capo soon became part of a new
reggaeton group known as "Erre XI." In May 2007, Saldana reached
out to Angel Martinez Alicea, Freddy Montalvo, and Etienne Gagnon,
three reggaeton producers from Springfield who had worked with Capo
in the past, and invited them to his studio to produce two songs
for Erre XI. Upon hearing the two songs, Saldana pronounced
Martinez and Montalvo his "new stars." Martinez and Montalvo
subsequently signed producer agreements with Mas Flow entitling
them to royalty payments for the songs they produced.
Over the next several months, Martinez, Capo, Montalvo,
and Gagnon worked in Saldana's studio on new songs for the Erre XI
album, performing vocals, composing beats and instrumentals, and
2
The plaintiffs' complaint also charged the defendants with
copyright infringement and breach of contract as to an eighth song
titled "Salgo Pa La Calle," which is no longer at issue on this
appeal.
-3-
providing sound engineering services. They were joined by Reynaldo
Colon Vega, a vocalist recruited by Martinez and Saldana in July
2007, and by Raul Rivera Roldan, a producer who had worked with
Saldana since 2004 and who had previously produced two songs,
"Mirala Bien" and "Paleta," released on a CD titled "Pa'l Mundo" in
2005. Colon signed an exclusive recording agreement with Mas Flow
in September 2007, while Rivera had signed a producer agreement
with Mas Flow in June 2006.
Since April 2004, Mas Flow had licensed to Machete Music
("Machete"), a division of UMG Recordings, Inc. ("UMG"), the
"exclusive right to sell and distribute" Mas Flow's recordings. In
August 2007, Mas Flow and its successor in interest, LT's Benjamin
Records, Inc. ("LT"), entered into a new Profit Share Agreement
with Machete, creating a new record label and providing for the
division of profits from the sale of albums delivered by Mas Flow
and distributed by Machete.
Seven songs on which the plaintiffs worked eventually
appeared on the Erre XI album distributed by Machete in 2008: "Al
Desnudo," "Carita Bonita," "Dimelo," "Ella Me Amo," "La Carta,"
"MSN," and "Te Hice Volar." Although the melodies to these songs
remained largely identical to the versions produced by the
plaintiffs, many of the plaintiffs' musical and vocal contributions
were replaced with the work of other artists.
-4-
The plaintiffs filed suit on January 5, 2010, asserting
counts of copyright infringement, breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement of services, unjust enrichment, and intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress. Their complaint named
as defendants Saldana, Cabrera, White Kraft Music Publishing, and
LT (the "LT defendants"); Ramon Ayala, professionally known as
"Daddy Yankee," El Cartel Records, Inc., and Los Cangris, Inc. (the
"Daddy Yankee defendants"); and UMG and Machete (the "UMG
defendants").3 Two months later, Capo and Colon registered with
the U.S. Copyright Office the copyrights in the sound recordings
for four of the songs, "Carita Bonita," "Al Desnudo," "Te Hice
Volar," and "Dimelo," each of which had numerous composers and
vocalists. In July 2010, the plaintiffs filed with the district
court a printout from the Copyright Office indicating that they had
filed for sound recording registration in the remaining three
songs.
On January 11, 2011, the district court adopted the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion
to dismiss as to the Daddy Yankee defendants for failure to state
a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction and also dismissing the
emotional distress claims against the UMG defendants. However, the
court denied the UMG defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
3
White Kraft Music Publishing and UMG were not named as
defendants in the original complaint, and were added in the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
-5-
the plaintiffs' copyright and contract claims. On October 6, 2011,
the court adopted a second report and recommendation from the
magistrate judge and dismissed the claims against the LT defendants
for lack of personal jurisdiction.4 Neither the Daddy Yankee
defendants nor the LT defendants remain parties to this appeal.
The remaining defendants, Machete and UMG, moved for
summary judgment. With respect to the copyright claims, the
defendants argued inter alia that as late as September 2011 the
plaintiffs still had not shown that they had registered copyrights
in the underlying compositions that they claimed were infringed, as
is required under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). As for the contract claims,
the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to establish
either that they had a direct contractual relationship with the UMG
defendants or that they were third-party beneficiaries of the
distribution and profit share agreements between Machete and Mas
Flow.
In opposition to the defendants' motion, the plaintiffs
stated that they had filed copies of the allegedly infringing Erre
XI recordings with the Copyright Office, and introduced an email
from the Copyright Office explaining that the office was still in
the process of determining whether the plaintiffs had submitted
4
The magistrate judge also recommended the dismissal of Gerry
Capo Hernandez as a plaintiff, as Capo had stated in an affidavit
that he did not wish to continue as a plaintiff.
-6-
permissible deposits of the recordings.5 At a January 2012 hearing
on the defendants' motion, plaintiffs' counsel informed the
district court that the Copyright Office still had yet to determine
whether the deposited recordings, although not the original
recordings on which the plaintiffs had worked, were nevertheless
acceptable for registration purposes.
On February 23, 2012, the court granted the UMG
defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that
even "[a]fter more than two years of litigation," the plaintiffs
had not satisfied the registration precondition of § 411(a), having
neither obtained registration certificates for the compositions nor
even shown that they had submitted all of the necessary application
materials for registration. With respect to the breach of contract
claims, the court found no evidence either of a direct agreement
between the parties or of third-party beneficiary status. The
court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for additional discovery
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and the plaintiffs' motion to transfer
the case to the District of Puerto Rico and consolidate it with
parallel litigation pending there.
5
The plaintiffs initially appeared to concede their copyright
infringement claims, stating in their opposition to the defendants'
summary judgment motion that "as far as Erre XI is concerned," they
were "no longer alleging copyright infringement." But they
reasserted copyright infringement in a subsequent sur-reply, and
the district court ultimately ruled on the copyright claims in its
summary judgment order. We therefore decline the defendants'
invitation to treat these claims as waived outright.
-7-
Four weeks later, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), claiming "new evidence"
unavailable at the time of the district court's order: namely,
newly obtained Copyright Office registration certificates for two
of the Erre XI songs ("Carita Bonita" and "MSN") and rejection
letters for three other songs from the album ("Ella Me Amo,"
"Dimelo," and "Al Desnudo").6 The district court denied this
motion on April 18, 2012. This appeal followed.
II.
On appeal, the plaintiffs assign error to the district
court's grant of summary judgment and its subsequent denial of
their motion for reconsideration, along with its denial of their
motions for transfer and additional discovery. We begin with the
summary judgment order, which we review de novo. In so doing, we
"draw[] all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party
while ignoring conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and
unsupported speculation." Smith v. Jenkins, 732 F.3d 51, 76 (1st
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the
district court's denial of the plaintiffs' subsequent motion to
reconsider the summary judgment order, we "will not overturn the
court's determination unless a miscarriage of justice is in
prospect or the record otherwise reveals a manifest abuse of
6
As for the remaining two songs, "La Carta" and "Te Hice
Volar," the plaintiffs stated in their motion that the registration
applications were "still pending."
-8-
discretion." Meléndez v. Autogermana, Inc., 622 F.3d 46, 55 (1st
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We are not bound by
the district court's rationale, and we may "affirm a correct result
reached by the court below on any independently sufficient ground
made manifest by the record." Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144
F.3d 151, 173 (1st Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We turn first to the plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims.
A. Copyright Claims
1. Summary Judgment
The district court's grant of summary judgment to the
defendants rested on its conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed
to register their copyrights in the allegedly infringed
compositions, a prerequisite to an infringement action under 17
U.S.C. § 411(a). Section 411(a) provides in pertinent part that
"no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United
States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
with this title." In order to register a copyright in a published
work, the owner of a copyright must submit to the Copyright Office
an application, fee, and two complete copies of the work to be
copyrighted. See 17 U.S.C. § 408(a), (b)(2). Although this
registration requirement does not circumscribe a federal court's
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has described it as
"a precondition to filing a claim." Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
-9-
Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 (2010); see also Latin Am. Music Co.
Inc. v. Media Power Grp., Inc., 705 F.3d 34, 42 (1st Cir. 2013).
As the district court recognized, and as we described in
Latin American Music Co., "[c]ircuits are split on whether the
registration requirement is satisfied at the time the copyright
holder's application is received by the Copyright Office (the
'application approach'), or at the time that the Office acts on the
application and issues a certificate of registration (the
'registration approach')." 705 F.3d at 43 n.11 (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][3] (discussing the two approaches and
favoring the application approach).7 Latin American Music Co. did
not give us occasion to choose between the two paradigms, as the
plaintiff could not even "show that it had submitted all the
necessary application materials for registration." 705 F.3d at 43
n.11. Our conclusion was consistent with Nimmer's explanation that
[a]bsent issuance of a certificate and in the
absence of the copyright owner even having
sent the requisite application (together with
deposit and fee) to the Copyright Office,
7
For cases applying the registration approach, see, e.g., La
Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195,
1202-07 (10th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Reed
Elsevier, 559 U.S. 154; M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v. Ameron Homes, Inc.,
903 F.2d 1486, 1488-89 (11th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds
by Reed Elsevier, 559 U.S. 154. For the application approach, see,
e.g., Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp., 606 F.3d 612,
615-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Chi. Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc., 354
F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard,
730 F.2d 384, 386-87 (5th Cir. 1984).
-10-
there is, under all viewpoints, a defect under
the statute . . . . As an absolute limit, if
the Copyright Office has failed to receive the
necessary elements to issue a registration
certificate prior to the time that the court
is called upon to issue final judgment, the
action must be dismissed.
Nimmer, supra, § 7.16[B][3][c] (footnotes omitted); see also Kernel
Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1302 (11th Cir. 2012).
Once again, we need not decide whether the application
approach or the registration approach should govern, as we conclude
that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under either
approach. More specifically, we agree with the district court's
conclusion that summary judgment was proper because there was a
lack of evidence as to "whether the copies [that the plaintiffs]
submitted to the Copyright Office [i.e., copies of the allegedly
infringing sound recordings from the defendants' album rather than
the original recordings on which the plaintiffs had worked] me[t]
all of the requirements for deposit copies" and "the Copyright
Office ha[d] not yet taken a position on whether it ha[d] received
all of the required materials for registration."
We find no competent evidence to the contrary in the
summary judgment record. Instead, the plaintiffs submitted an
email from the Copyright Office dated September 22, 2011, which
stated that the office was still "waiting to resolve" the question
of "whether a copy of an[] unauthorized track, that contains the
original composition embedded in the track, can be used as deposit
-11-
material." The email further explained that "in general, an
unauthorized copy cannot be used as deposit material." Over four
months later, at a hearing before the district court on the
defendants' summary judgment motion, no progress appeared to have
been made: plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that the
Copyright Office was still "trying to determine [] whether or not
the deposit copies, the actual songs we deposited, are okay to
deposit," and admitted that the office had "not yet decided one way
or another whether they have a deposit copy" and, if not, whether
the plaintiffs would be "relieved of the obligation to submit a
deposit copy in the circumstances of this case."
Against this backdrop, we find no error in the district
court's summary judgment order. More than two years after filing
suit, the plaintiffs still had not established that their
applications to the Copyright Office were complete; by their own
admission, the adequacy of the deposited recordings remained an
open question. Cf. Geoscan, Inc. of Tex. v. Geotrace Techs., Inc.,
226 F.3d 387, 393 (5th Cir. 2000) (upholding summary judgment where
"correspondence between the Copyright Office and [plaintiff]
indicate[d] that registration of the copyrights was not complete
. . . because [plaintiff] had not submitted for deposit the
original source codes for its software . . . .").
Although the plaintiffs assign blame to both the
defendants and the district court for this state of affairs, we are
-12-
unpersuaded by their arguments. The plaintiffs' appellate brief is
filled with blurred and oblique insinuations of wrongdoing by the
defendants, the import of which is not clear. Faced with these
rudimentary assertions, "we see no reason to abandon the settled
appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed
waived." United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990);
see also Tower v. Leslie-Brown, 326 F.3d 290, 299 (1st Cir. 2003).
The plaintiffs elsewhere appear to contend that the
district court ignored the existence of sound recording
registrations obtained by Capo and Colon for four of the songs.
This argument, too, is a nonstarter. As we have explained in the
past, "sound recordings and their underlying musical compositions
are separate works with their own distinct copyrights." Johnson v.
Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 26 n.8 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted). Given that distinction, the Copyright
Office only permits the joint registration of a musical composition
and a sound recording in a single application "if ownership of the
copyrights in both is exactly the same." U.S. Copyright Office,
Circular 56A: Copyright Registration of Musical Compositions and
Sound Recordings (2012). As the parties do not dispute that the
authorship of the four registered sound recordings is not
coextensive with the authorship of the underlying compositions, the
-13-
registration of the sound recordings has no bearing on the
plaintiffs' claims for compositional copyright infringement.
To the extent that the plaintiffs alternatively suggest
on appeal that they are also claiming infringement in the sound
recordings, that claim lacks any foundation in the underlying
complaint, which refers only to the plaintiffs' copyrights in the
"Original Compositions." It is therefore no surprise that the
district court did not address this purported claim in its summary
judgment order. The plaintiffs' failure to adequately raise this
argument below dooms it on appeal. See Iverson v. City of Boston,
452 F.3d 94, 102 (1st Cir. 2006) ("[T]heories not squarely and
timely raised in the trial court cannot be pursued for the first
time on appeal."); see also McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d
13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991).
We reach the same conclusion with respect to the
plaintiffs' supposed request for a declaration of joint authorship.
The statement of claims in the plaintiffs' complaint makes no
mention of a joint authorship claim; the only references to such a
claim are contained in the "Nature of the Action" and "Requests for
Relief" sections, which request that the court declare each of the
plaintiffs "an author . . . and co-owner of copyright in the
Original Compositions." But "the prayer for relief is no part of
the cause of action," Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d
876, 901 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), and
-14-
the plaintiffs cannot now flesh out this inadequately pleaded claim
on appeal, see Iverson, 452 F.3d at 102; McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22.
2. Motion for Reconsideration
We now turn to the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. At some point after the district court issued its
summary judgment order, the plaintiffs finally obtained copyright
registrations in two of the songs, "MSN" and "Carita Bonita."
Their applications for registration in three other songs ("Ella Me
Amo," "Dimelo," and "Al Desnudo") were denied on the basis that the
non-original deposit copies did not contain the plaintiffs'
contributions. At least with respect to the two registered songs,
the plaintiffs suggest that newly discovered evidence -- to wit,
the certificates of registration -- required the court to grant
their motion for reconsideration.8
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration within the 28-
day window provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and we therefore
treat their motion as a motion to alter or amend the district
court's judgment. See United States v. $23,000 in U.S. Currency,
356 F.3d 157, 165 n.9 (1st Cir. 2004). Rule 59(e) contemplates
reconsideration based on, inter alia, evidence discovered after the
8
To the extent that the plaintiffs imply that the Copyright
Office rejection letters also represent new evidence compelling
reconsideration, we find their argument unfounded: the Copyright
Office's decision to reject three of the applications for
inadequate deposits vindicates, rather than calls into question,
the district court's conclusion at summary judgment.
-15-
entry of judgment, and we have cautioned that it "does not allow a
party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and
should have been presented to the district court prior to
judgment." Emmanuel v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local Union No.
25, 426 F.3d 416, 422 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A district court thus "does not abuse its discretion by
denying a motion for reconsideration grounded on the discovery of
evidence that, in the exercise of due diligence, could have been
presented earlier." Id.; see also 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2808 ("Newly discovered
evidence must be of facts existing at the time of trial. The
moving party must have been excusably ignorant of the facts despite
using due diligence to learn about them." (footnotes omitted)).
In denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration,
the district court stated that it did so "for the reasons set forth
in Defendants' Opposition and supporting memorandum." In their
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, the defendants had argued
that reconsideration of the copyright claims "would be futile
because plaintiffs granted licenses for use of their compositions,"
immunizing the defendants from liability for infringement. We do
not reach the question of whether the defendants held licenses in
the plaintiffs' compositions, however, as the plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration fails for an even more fundamental reason. See
Hodgens, 144 F.3d at 173 (we may "affirm a correct result reached
-16-
by the court below on any independently sufficient ground made
manifest by the record" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Specifically, the subsequently obtained certificates of
registration for "Carita Bonita" and "MSN" do not represent "newly
discovered evidence" warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
This conclusion is particularly straightforward under the
"registration approach" discussed above. At the time that the
district court entered its summary judgment order, the plaintiffs
had not yet obtained registration in any of the Erre XI songs.
Given that state of affairs, the district court was entirely
justified in awarding summary judgment. The plaintiffs' subsequent
success in registering "Carita Bonita" and "MSN" is simply beside
the point, as these registrations are new facts altogether, not new
evidence of facts existing at the time of summary judgment. See 11
Wright & Miller, supra, at § 2808; cf. Betterbox Commc'ns Ltd. v.
BB Techs., Inc., 300 F.3d 325, 330-32 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J.)
(rejecting counterclaiming defendant's argument that subsequent
cancellation of plaintiff's trademark registration constituted
"newly discovered evidence" justifying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2), "because the fact of cancellation was not in existence at
the time of trial").
The plaintiffs fare no better under the "application
approach." At best, the subsequent registrations might be taken as
proof that the plaintiffs had submitted complete applications for
-17-
these two songs by the time of summary judgment.9 Even assuming
that to be the case, however, the plaintiffs have not shown that
they were excusably ignorant of the fact that their applications
were complete at the time of summary judgment, or that due
diligence (e.g., an inquiry to the Copyright Office) would not have
uncovered this fact. See Emmanuel, 426 F.3d at 422; 11 Wright &
Miller, supra, at § 2808. To the contrary, since the plaintiffs
themselves were responsible for submitting a complete application
to the Copyright Office, it is only fair to infer that they were in
a position to know whether their applications were complete and to
provide the district court with evidence of this fact.
The plaintiffs took neither of these steps; instead, as
shown above, they represented to the district court that the
Copyright Office had not yet determined whether their applications
were complete. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not file a motion for
continuance in order to obtain evidence that the applications were
in fact complete. We therefore find it surpassingly hard to
9
We note, however, that nothing in the record appears to
compel that conclusion. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
and attached certificates of registration offer no explanation for
why "Carita Bonita" and "MSN" were registered but the other songs
were not. It is certainly possible that these two applications
were not complete until after summary judgment, in which case the
registrations would not represent evidence of facts existing at the
time of summary judgment. Cf. Betterbox, 300 F.3d at 331-32(rejecting the argument that "post-trial cancellation show[ed]
that, at the time of trial, the [Patent and Trademark Office] had
already decided to cancel" the registration, because the "notice of
cancellation [did] not reveal that a decision to cancel had been
made at the time of trial").
-18-
believe that the plaintiffs could not have exercised greater
diligence either in filing their applications with the Copyright
Office or in their representations before the district court
concerning the registration issue. Cf. Betterbox, 300 F.3d at 332(even assuming arguendo that subsequent cancellation was evidence
that an internal decision had been made to cancel the plaintiff's
trademark registration by the time of trial, the counterclaimant
"ha[d] not shown that it exercised due diligence in attempting to
obtain evidence of such a decision," nor had it "ask[ed] for a
trial continuance for the purpose of obtaining evidence that
cancellation was imminent"). We therefore find no abuse of
discretion on the part of the district court.
B. Contract Claims
1. Rivera Claim
The plaintiff Raul Rivera Roldan brought an individual
claim for breach of contract based on an alleged direct contractual
relationship with the UMG defendants as to two songs, "Mirala Bien"
and "Paleta," from the 2005 "Pa'l Mundo" CD. In addition to
expressing skepticism as to whether this claim was adequately set
forth in the complaint, the district court also found "no evidence"
of such a contract in the record, and accordingly granted summary
judgment to the defendants.
The parties do not dispute the applicability of
Massachusetts contract law to this action. In order to establish
-19-
a claim for breach of contract under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff
must, inter alia, "prove that a valid, binding contract existed."
Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co., 480 F.3d 579, 586 (1st
Cir. 2007). Moreover, a plaintiff cannot merely "allege, in
conclusory fashion, that the defendant breached the contract," and
must instead "describ[e], with substantial certainty, the specific
contractual promise the defendant failed to keep." Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Applying that legal standard, we find no error on the
part of the district court. We agree with the district court that
Count IX of the plaintiffs' complaint, alleging breach of contract
as to Rivera, fails to identify -- let alone "describ[e], with
substantial certainty," id. -- a specific contract between Rivera
and the UMG defendants.10 Nor does any of Rivera's cited evidence
establish such a contract. Although Rivera did sign a 2006
recording agreement with Mas Flow providing for the payment of
royalties, that document makes no mention of the UMG defendants and
instead leaves Mas Flow responsible for compensation. Rivera's
subjective understanding that "Universal Music [i.e., UMG] was
responsible for paying the mechanical royalties" is not alone
10
Count IX instead alleges that Rivera contracted with the LT
defendants and that this contract was later "transferred to 'The
Label'" -- i.e., the "Label" created by the 2007 Profit Share
Agreement between LT and Machete. As we explain in section B.3
infra, however, the plaintiffs have failed to adequately raise
before us the argument that their contracts were assigned to the
UMG defendants, and we therefore consider it waived.
-20-
enough to prove the existence of a direct contract with the UMG
defendants. Finally, a UMG "song information sheet" showing
Rivera's royalty percentage is not itself a contract between Rivera
and UMG, and Rivera has pointed to no specific agreement to which
this document is tied.
The remaining evidence on which Rivera relies -- the 2007
Profit Share Agreement, and an expert witness report interpreting
this agreement -- reflects an agreement between LT and Machete, and
in no way establishes a direct contractual relationship between
Rivera and the UMG defendants. Whether Rivera and the other
plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries of this contract is a
separate question to which we presently turn.
2. Profit Share Agreement
The plaintiffs next contend that the district court erred
in awarding summary judgment on their third-party beneficiary
claims regarding the defendants' alleged breach of the August 2007
Profit Share Agreement between Machete and LT. Noting that only
one of the plaintiffs (Rivera) was even named in the Agreement, the
district court found that the plaintiffs had "failed to plead
sufficient facts to support" a third-party beneficiary claim and
that they were at best merely incidental beneficiaries of the
Profit Share Agreement.
Under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff seeking to enforce
a contract as a third-party beneficiary must demonstrate "from the
-21-
language and circumstances of the contract that the parties to the
contract clearly and definitely intended the beneficiaries to
benefit from the promised performance." Miller v. Mooney, 725
N.E.2d 545, 550 (Mass. 2000) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted); see also Anderson v. Fox Hill Vill. Homeowners Corp., 676
N.E.2d 821, 822-23 (Mass. 1997). Merely incidental beneficiaries
lack standing to enforce a contract. See Harvard Law Sch. Coal.
for Civil Rights v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 595
N.E.2d 316, 319 (Mass. 1992); Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Servs.,
Inc., 392 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Mass. 1979); Restatement (Second) of
Contracts §§ 302, 315 (1981). On appeal, the plaintiffs point to
four paragraphs of the Profit Share Agreement evincing, in their
view, a sufficiently clear and definite intent for them to
benefit.11 We address each in turn.
Paragraph E.2 of the Agreement, titled "Producer
Royalty," governs compensation of the producers of recordings for
the newly-created record label (the "Label").12 The plaintiffs
11
We summarily reject the plaintiffs' additional argument that
summary judgment was improper because the district court
erroneously relied upon the "self-serving statements of Defendants'
counsel," who testified that Machete and LT did not enter into the
Profit Share Agreement with any intent to benefit the plaintiffs.
As an initial matter, it is less than clear that the district court
in fact relied upon this testimony, as it is nowhere cited in the
summary judgment order. In any event, however, our review of the
Profit Share Agreement persuades us that summary judgment was
proper even without this additional evidence.
12
Paragraph E.2 provides in its entirety:
-22-
suggest that the first sentence of Paragraph E.2, which
specifically names Rivera (professionally known as "Thilo") in a
list of LT producers whose services LT must provide to the Label,
evinces an intent to benefit at least Rivera. Moreover, the
plaintiffs cite Paragraph E.2 to support their contention that "the
Profit Sharing Agreement states it will pay sums certain to [t]he
LT Producers." But Paragraph E.2 imposes no obligation on Machete
to pay these royalties. Instead, it twice states that LT is
responsible for the producers' compensation: "LT will be solely
responsible for compensating the LT producers" and any other
producers it engages, and again, "Any additional funding required
for the LT producer services shall be provided directly and soley
LT and its Principal [Saldana] will also furnish the
services of the producers known as the Underage, Tainy,
Nales, A & A, and Thilo [Rivera] (the "LT Producers") to
the Label, pursuant to work for hire agreements signed
between LT and the LT Producers. The LT producers may
work on projects outside of the Label so long as such
work does not interfere with LT's delivery obligations
hereunder and so long as Label projects are given
priority over any outside projects. LT will be solely
responsible for compensating the LT producers or engaging
and compensating any other producers it may engage to
assist with the recordings hereunder, including without
limitation the producer services of the producer
professionally known as Tunes [Cabrera]. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, it is the intention of the parties that
the LT producers shall be compensated on a flat fee basis
of up to Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per track which
will be taken from the relevant artist's authorized
recording budget or a royalty of three percent (3%) if
the artist agreement provides for an all-in royalty, to
be decided on a case by case basis. Any additional
funding required for the LT producer services shall be
provided directly and soley [sic] by LT and or Principal.
-23-
[sic] by LT and or [Saldana]." There is thus nothing in Paragraph
E.2 that even establishes a duty on Machete's part inuring to the
plaintiffs' benefit, much less an intent for the plaintiffs to
benefit. To the contrary, Paragraph E.2 makes clear that any such
obligation rests with LT.
Paragraphs H and R of the Agreement also fail to support
the plaintiffs' theory.13 Although the plaintiffs aver that Rivera
"was entitled to a share of LT's profits stemming from this
agreement" and "to royalties for his share of the P'Al [sic] Mundo
CD" under these two paragraphs, neither paragraph creates any
contractual obligation as to Rivera or any other plaintiff.
Instead, these paragraphs govern LT's profits from the newly-
13
Paragraph H.1, titled "Distribution of Profits," provides in
pertinent part:
Machete shall pay LT forty nine percent (49%) of the
Label's Net Proceeds (the "LT Profit"), retaining the
balance of Net Proceeds for Machete's own account. "Net
Proceeds" shall mean all income received from the
exploitation of the Label's products throughout the
Territory (including license income pursuant to paragraph
F below) less [] aggregate costs and fees . . . .
Paragraph R in turn provides in pertinent part:
In consideration of Principal's producer services in
connection with the Masters embodied on the album "Pa'l
Mundo" (the first "WY Album") embodying the performances
of the artists Juan Luis Morera Luna and Llandel Vegilla
Malave, collectively professionally known as Wisin and
Yandel (hereinafter referred to as WY), Machete hereby
grants to LT a participation of 25% of Machete's Net
Proceeds pursuant to paragraph H, above, and a 25%
ownership interest in such Masters, commencing on January
1, 2007 and with respect to sales after such date.
-24-
created Label and from the 2005 "Pa'l Mundo" CD and, therefore, do
not evince any intent to benefit the plaintiffs.
The final provision of the Agreement upon which the
plaintiffs rely is Paragraph K.2, titled "LT's Services." It
provides:
LT will furnish the services of Principal and
the LT Producers (provided that Principal
shall be the sole or primary producer) to
produce ten (10) recordings of various Machete
artists (i.e., non Label artist's [sic]) upon
Machete's request. Machete will pay the
applicable LT Producers an advance in the
amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00)
upon Delivery of each such track to Machete
and a royalty of up to 3% to be taken out of
the artist royalty and recoupable from the
aforementioned advance and recording budget.
Such amounts shall be funded by Machete so
long as they are within the maximum authorized
A & R budgets set forth herein. Otherwise LT
shall fund such amounts.
Unlike the other paragraphs, this paragraph expressly contemplates
the payment of royalties to the "LT Producers" (a group defined in
Paragraph E.2 and including Rivera) by Machete rather than by LT.
Nevertheless, it imposes no actual obligation on Machete's part to
employ these producers on non-Label projects; instead, it requires
LT to furnish the producers "upon Machete's request."
The plaintiffs have not alleged that the Erre XI songs
were produced under this provision for a non-Label artist. To the
contrary, the parties do not dispute that the Erre XI artists were
signed to the Label. Reading the contract in its entirety as we
must, and construing it "to give reasonable effect to each of its
-25-
provisions," J.A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 494 N.E.2d 374,
378 (Mass. 1986), we conclude that this case, involving Label
recordings, is governed by Paragraph E.2 rather than K.2. As
discussed above, that provision of the Agreement leaves LT "solely
responsible" for producer royalties and thus offers no support for
the plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary claim against the UMG
defendants.
Apart from the text of the Profit Share Agreement, the
plaintiffs also point to various items of extrinsic evidence in an
effort to bolster their third-party beneficiary claims tied to the
Agreement. We conclude, however, that this extratextual evidence
-- an expert witness's written opinion interpreting the Agreement,
deposition testimony of a Machete employee, a letter from Machete
to LT alleging breach, and a series of internal emails in which UMG
states that it will be administering mechanical royalties for the
Erre XI album -- cannot be introduced to contradict the unambiguous
language of the Agreement.
Under Massachusetts contract law, "extrinsic evidence may
be used as an interpretive guide only after the judge or the court
determines that the contract is ambiguous on its face or as
applied." Bank v. Thermo Elemental Inc., 888 N.E.2d 897, 908
(Mass. 2008); see also Nat'l Tax Inst., Inc. v. Topnotch at Stowe
Resort & Spa, 388 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 2004) ("[E]xtrinsic
evidence may be considered if language is ambiguous but not
-26-
otherwise (and whether language is ambiguous is a question for the
judge)."). The plaintiffs fail to persuade us of any ambiguity in
the language of Paragraph E.2 of the Agreement, which twice states
that LT is solely responsible for the compensation of its
producers. We therefore see no need to resort to extrinsic
evidence in our interpretation of the Agreement.
Even if we were to do so, hewing to a more liberal
approach under which extrinsic evidence may be considered "to
demonstrate that a term is vague or ambiguous in the first place,"
Smart v. Gillette Co. Long-Term Disability Plan, 70 F.3d 173, 179
(1st Cir. 1995), our conclusion would remain the same. Of the four
items of extrinsic evidence identified by the plaintiffs, two --
the Machete employee's deposition testimony and the letter from
Machete to LT alleging breach -- concern only the contractual
relationship between Machete and LT and seemingly have no relevance
to the plaintiffs' contractual rights.14 Although the plaintiffs
cite their expert witness's opinion for the proposition that
"payment of mechanical royalties by the label[] is a standard
14
The deposed employee testified about a statement from
Machete's president that Machete would not pay Saldana the money he
was owed, and did not mention any money owed to the plaintiffs in
this case. Similarly, although the plaintiffs claim that the
letter from Machete to LT alleges breach on the part of LT's
producers, it in fact only alleges a breach of LT's obligations
under the Profit Share Agreement: it states in pertinent part that
LT's producers have provided services on non-Label projects "that
have materially interfered with the delivery obligations of LT's
Benjamin as prohibited pursuant to Section E(2)" of the Profit
Share Agreement.
-27-
practice," the expert's analysis focuses primarily on another
section of the Agreement, Paragraph T, concerning which the
plaintiffs raise only a cursory appellate argument. Moreover,
although general industry practices may be helpful in resolving
contractual ambiguities, see, e.g., C.A. Acquisition Newco, LLC v.
DHL Express (USA), Inc., 696 F.3d 109, 114 (1st Cir. 2012), we do
not think this testimony alone suffices to create an ambiguity in
the plain language of Paragraph E.2. See Smart, 70 F.3d at 180("In no event may extrinsic evidence be employed to contradict
explicit contract language or to drain an agreement's text of all
content save ink and paper.").
As for the internal emails in which UMG states that it
will be administering mechanical royalties for the Erre XI album,
we think them too slender a reed to render the Agreement ambiguous
as to the plaintiffs' status. Although these emails may indeed
evince some obligation on the part of the UMG defendants, they were
sent a year after Machete and LT signed the Profit Share Agreement
and do not compel the conclusion that the Agreement was the origin
of the defendants' obligation. We find these emails insufficient
to impugn the plain language of Paragraph E.2, requiring LT to
compensate its producers, and therefore conclude that the Profit
Share Agreement imposed no duty on the UMG defendants to compensate
the plaintiffs.
-28-
In a final effort to establish third-party beneficiary
status, the plaintiffs suggest that they "gave consideration" for
the Profit Share Agreement, focusing specifically on Rivera's
renegotiation of his 2006 producer agreement in the wake of the
Profit Share Agreement. Whether Rivera gave consideration for the
Agreement to occur is a separate question, however, from whether he
was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Agreement. Just as
personal consideration on the part of a third party is not
necessary to establish third-party beneficiary status, see 13
Williston on Contracts § 37:28 (4th ed. 2013), so too is it not
sufficient. Because the plaintiffs have failed to show that the
Profit Share Agreement was intended for their benefit, their third-
party beneficiary claims fail.
3. Miscellany
Other argumentative riffs emerge intermittently from the
plaintiffs' often dissonant briefing. The plaintiffs appear to
have contended below that Paragraph T of the Profit Share
Agreement, by transferring "[a]ll artist contracts owned or
controlled by Mas Flow, LT, [or] any affiliated companies" to the
new Label, constituted an assignment of LT's contractual duties to
Machete. On appeal, however, they only dedicate a single sentence
of their reply brief to this argument, stating merely that this
paragraph "along with the other cited sections in plaintiffs' brief
clearly demonstrate[s] evidence of an intention to benefit
-29-
plaintiffs." With no further elaboration and no identified
evidence contradicting the district court's conclusion that "only
Gerry Capo Hernandez's contract was actually transferred to the
Label under this provision, and [Capo] is no longer a Plaintiff in
this case," we deem this cursory argument waived and do not assess
its merit. See Tower, 326 F.3d at 299; Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17.
We also reject the plaintiffs' claim that they are "joint
authors of the disputed songs" and therefore entitled to
"royalties, mechanical or otherwise" from Machete. As discussed in
section A.1 supra, these joint authorship allegations were
insufficiently pleaded below and cannot now be developed for the
first time on appeal. So, too, with respect to the plaintiffs'
embryonic theory that the "Label" created by the Profit Share
Agreement was a partnership between Machete and LT and that the
partners are therefore jointly liable to the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs neither alleged such a partnership in their complaint
nor raised this theory in their opposition to summary judgment
below, and therefore cannot do so now. See Iverson, 452 F.3d at
102; McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22.
4. Motion for Reconsideration
Unlike their copyright claims, the plaintiffs do not
allege that newly discovered evidence warranted reconsideration of
their contract claims; instead, they claim that the district
court's entry of summary judgment was based on a "manifest error of
-30-
law" and that the court therefore abused its discretion in denying
their motion for reconsideration. See FDIC v. World Univ. Inc.,
978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992) ("Motions under Rule 59(e) must
either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present
newly discovered evidence."). Because we have discerned no legal
error, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion for reconsideration.
C. Lanham Act Claim
The plaintiffs next aver that the district court "failed
to address the Lanham Act claims . . . apparently due to the
Court's finding of no registration." In fact, however, the
district court's supposed oversight is susceptible to a more
straightforward explanation. Except for a single reference in the
first paragraph (titled "Nature of the Action"), which describes
the plaintiffs' suit as partially "a civil action for . . . false
designation of origin under the Lanham Act," the plaintiffs'
complaint neither lists a count under the Lanham Act nor makes any
other allusion to a Lanham Act claim. Nor do we find any mention
of a Lanham Act claim in any of the plaintiffs' other district
court filings save for a lone sentence in their March 2012 motion
for reconsideration.15 The mere mention of a Lanham Act claim in
the opening paragraph of the plaintiffs' complaint is not enough to
15
The motion for reconsideration states, "Plaintiffs also
properly pleaded a claim pursuant to the Lanham Act, which
defendant has not addressed and should not have been dismissed."
-31-
make out such a claim as part of the plaintiffs' cause of action,
cf. Coll, 642 F.3d at 901, let alone to set forth "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face,'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). We thus repeat what is by now a familiar leitmotif in
this opinion: having failed to adequately raise this claim before
the district court, the plaintiffs cannot now raise it on appeal.
See Iverson, 452 F.3d at 102; McCoy, 950 F.2d at 22.
D. Procedural Issues
On appeal, the plaintiffs also challenge the district
court's adverse rulings on their motion for additional discovery
and their motion to transfer the case to Puerto Rico. We review
both rulings for abuse of discretion. See Ecker v. United States,
575 F.3d 70, 76 (1st Cir. 2009) (transfer); Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol
Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 91 (1st Cir. 1996) (additional
discovery).
1. Motion for Additional Discovery
Not long after filing their opposition to the defendants'
motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), seeking an extension of time in which to
depose Machete's keeper of records and its former president. The
district court denied this motion, following the tripartite
-32-
analysis set forth in Rivera-Torres v. Rey-Hernández, 502 F.3d 7,
10 (1st Cir. 2007):
A litigant who seeks to invoke [Rule 56(d)]
must act with due diligence to show that his
predicament fits within its confines. To that
end, the litigant must submit to the trial
court an affidavit or other authoritative
document showing (i) good cause for his
inability to have discovered or marshalled the
necessary facts earlier in the proceedings;
(ii) a plausible basis for believing that
additional facts probably exist and can be
retrieved within a reasonable time; and (iii)
an explanation of how those facts, if
collected, will suffice to defeat the pending
summary judgment motion.
In the district court's estimation, the plaintiffs failed both the
first and third prongs.
We need not address the "good cause" prong, because the
plaintiffs' appeal is easily resolved under the third prong. The
plaintiffs have failed to show how the information to be obtained
from the depositions would have defeated the defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Although the plaintiffs now imply that the
deposition testimony would be used for a number of purposes, their
avowed purpose in the Rule 56(d) motion before the district court
could hardly have been clearer: "[P]laintiffs do not wish to go on
a fishing expedition, they merely wish to authenticate documents
already produced." As the district court recognized, the
defendants made clear in their opposition that they only challenged
the authenticity of one of the four documents identified in the
plaintiffs' motion. That document, apparently an August 2007
-33-
invoice from Mas Flow to Freddy Montalvo for ten songs not named in
the plaintiffs' complaint, makes no reference to UMG or Machete.
Even assuming the document's admissibility, the plaintiffs have
furnished no explanation for how it would militate against summary
judgment.
We therefore conclude that the district court acted well
within the purview of its discretion in denying the plaintiffs'
Rule 56(d) motion for additional discovery. Similarly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on this issue, as that
motion merely rehashed the plaintiffs' original argument and
identified no legal or factual error warranting reconsideration.
See $23,000 in U.S. Currency, 356 F.3d at 165 n.9 ("The repetition
of previous arguments is not sufficient to prevail on a Rule 59(e)
motion.").
2. Motion to Transfer
Also during the course of the summary judgment
proceedings, the plaintiffs moved to transfer this case to the
District of Puerto Rico and consolidate it with a parallel lawsuit
that they had recently filed in that district.16 The plaintiffs
sought transfer of the entire case, including claims against the
16
The Puerto Rico lawsuit, filed on August 12, 2011, was later
dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to serve process within
the 120-day term provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Martinez-
Alicea v. LT's Benjamin Records, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01795-CCC
(D.P.R. Jan. 13, 2012).
-34-
Daddy Yankee and LT defendants (no longer parties to this appeal)
previously dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
district court denied this motion in its summary judgment order,
reasoning that it was too late for the plaintiffs to request
transfer as to those defendants who had already obtained dismissal
for want of personal jurisdiction. With respect to the UMG
defendants, the court found no lack of jurisdiction and therefore
concluded that transfer was inappropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631,
which provides for transfer when "there is a want of jurisdiction"
and transfer is "in the interest of justice."
We agree with the district court's conclusion. As there
was manifestly no "want of jurisdiction" with respect to the UMG
defendants (the only remaining defendants), transfer under § 1631
was inappropriate. See Subsalve USA Corp. v. Watson Mfg., Inc.,
462 F.3d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 2006) (explaining that § 1631 "furnishes
a court that lacks jurisdiction over an action with a choice
between transfer and dismissal" (emphasis added)). Moreover,
transfer of this case would in any event not be "in the interest of
justice" given our conclusion that the district court did not err
in granting summary judgment to the UMG defendants. Cf. Britell v.
United States, 318 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir. 2003) ("[I]f an action or
appeal is fanciful or frivolous, it is in the interest of justice
to dismiss it rather than to keep it on life support (with the
inevitable result that the transferee court will pull the
-35-
plug).").17 We therefore find no abuse of discretion in either the
district court's denial of this motion or its subsequent denial of
the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. See $23,000 in U.S.
Currency, 356 F.3d at 165 n.9.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's
orders granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment,
denying the plaintiffs' motions for transfer and additional
discovery, and denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
17
In light of the voluntary dismissal on appeal of the other
defendants, over whom the district court concluded that it lacked
personal jurisdiction, we need not address either of the two
questions left unresolved in Cimon v. Gaffney, 401 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
2005): whether § 1631 "provides for transfers only where a federal
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or whether it also applies
where other types of jurisdiction are lacking, including personal
jurisdiction," id. at 7 n.21, and whether § 1631 permits "the
transfer of some but not all claims in an action," id. at 7 n.20,
so that the court could have transferred the claims against the
other defendants but not the claims against the UMG defendants.
-36-