Umg Recordings, Inc. v. Bcd Music Group, Inc. , 509 F. App'x 661 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                              FEB 19 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware                 No. 11-56448
    corporation,
    D.C. No. 2:07-cv-05808-SJO-FFM
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    BCD MUSIC GROUP, INC., a Texas
    corporation and DEEP DISTRIBUTION
    WORLDWIDE, INC.,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 8, 2013
    Pasadena, California
    Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    BCD Music Group, Inc., and Deep Distribution Worldwide, Inc., appeal
    from an order amending a judgment against BCD to add Deep as a judgment
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    debtor based on the court’s determination that Deep was the alter ego of BCD. See
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). We affirm.
    Because BCD and Deep did not dispute the applicability of California law in
    district court, their new argument on appeal that Texas law applies to the question
    whether Deep is the alter ego of BCD is forfeited. Scott v. Ross, 
    140 F.3d 1275
    ,
    1283 (9th Cir. 1998).
    The district court did not clearly err in determining that Deep was BCD’s
    alter ego. See Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 
    394 F.3d 1143
    ,
    1148 (9th Cir. 2004); Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., 
    90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 589
    , 619
    (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). The district court reasonably could have determined that
    BCD and Deep had a unity of interest and ownership, based on evidence that BCD
    and Deep had the same ownership, shared an address, shared directors, shared a
    Managing Director, and operated in a similar industry with identical clients.
    Further, the district court reasonably could have determined that BCD would not
    pay its judgment debt (leading to an inequitable result) unless the corporate veil
    were pierced, based on evidence regarding BCD’s financial condition and its
    failure to make payments to UMG. See Troyk, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 619. Finally, the
    district court did not err in determining that Deep had the ability to control BCD’s
    defense against UMG’s copyright allegations, given the involvement of Deep’s
    2
    managing director in the BCD litigation. See NEC Elec. Inc. v. Hurt, 
    256 Cal. Rptr. 441
    , 444–45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). In light of the district court’s
    determination that Deep was BCD’s alter ego, it is irrelevant whether Deep
    infringed UMG’s copyrights in its own name, rather than in the name of BCD. See
    Dow Jones Co. v. Avenel, 
    198 Cal. Rptr. 457
    , 461 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
    Finally, BCD and Deep forfeited their argument that the district court abused
    its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, because they failed to cite
    a single case or statute in support of their argument or otherwise develop it. See
    United States v. Graf, 
    610 F.3d 1148
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-56448

Citation Numbers: 509 F. App'x 661

Judges: Callahan, Hurwitz, Ikuta

Filed Date: 2/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023