Leonardo Angiulo: Supreme Court Rules Raging Bull Lawsuit to Go Another Round in Federal Court

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLcoalProv Legal Expert

Leonardo Angiulo: Supreme Court Rules Raging Bull Lawsuit to Go Another Round in Federal Court

Raging Bull is a classic piece of cinema. It chronicles the triumph of brutality and the consequences of excess. The film itself was beautifully orchestrated by the modern master Martin Scorsese. The commitment of the cast and crew to the process resulting in the high quality of the film is legendary. Of course, no matter how exceptional the story telling is, there wouldn’t be a movie if there wasn’t a story to tell. I could go on, but this isn’t a film review column. Instead, the question that needs to be answered is: how did this movie end up in a case before the Supreme Court?

Like many great films, Raging Bull is based on a real person. Jake LaMotta started boxing in the Bronx and became a legend of the ring. In the years since his professional career during the 1940’s and 50’s, the story of his life has become commonly known thanks, in part, to the movie. It is fair to say that people pay to watch the movie over and over again. And since people keep paying, anyone who has an ownership stake in the movie stands to make money.

Like many things in this world, if there is money involved there is a reason to fight. In the May 19, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. the fight is between Ms. Paula Petrella and a major motion picture production company commonly known as “MGM.” Paula’s father, Frank Petrella, co-wrote two screenplays and a 1970 book with LaMotta. The motion picture rights to those works eventually came to be owned by MGM who now continues to market the film and invest in converting it into new formats and re-releases. Paula now holds the copyright to her father’s original work, claims the film is a derivative thereof, and filed a lawsuit in California for monetary and injunctive relief. As you could probably guess, monetary relief means she wants to get paid for her piece of the movie, and injunctive relief means she believes MGM shouldn’t be making money on the movie if she isn’t and if granted could mean the movie would not be distributed anymore.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Spoiler alert: this is when all the intrigue ends and the heavy legal language begins. One of the defenses MGM raised in the case is known as the “doctrine of laches.” This legal theory was argued by MGM as a reason to throw the case out and that is exactly what happened at the trial level. The motion for summary judgment was allowed because the court found copyright violations not only in the three years preceding the filing of Ms. Petrella’s complaint, but also in the years before. In such cases, the court applied the Ninth Federal Circuit Court’s precedent stating that if any part of the wrongful conduct alleged occurs before the three year limitations period the claim is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. Notably, the way the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue was different from how other jurisdictions in the federal court system handle similar situations.

The legal conflict in this case is whether, or not, the legislative rule stating copyright holders like Ms. Petrella can pursue claims for the three years preceding the filing of a lawsuit controls or whether the doctrine of laches controls. Resolving conflicts in legal precedent between jurisdictions is one of the things the U.S. Supreme Court does best. Our system is designed so that litigants can look at prior cases known as precedent to create a reasonable forecast for what an outcome will be. In some ways, if you have a pretty good idea for how a case will likely end, parties to a dispute may choose to resolve their differences before ever getting to court. Or, in the alternative, make informed decisions about costs of litigation and risks of trial based on that precedent.

When the Supreme Court ruled that the three year rule applied, the court not only permitted Ms. Petrella’s case to go forward, but also drew a firm line for the enforcement of statutory terms. As referenced in the case, the doctrine of laches is part of a legal tradition sometimes known as “suits in equity” that were common before the federal rules of procedure were adopted in 1938. Now, as referenced in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2, we only have one form of action known as a civil action. Even with the rule change, however, current lawsuits still incorporate equitable theories of relief and defense. Laches, for example, is an equitable defense essentially saying that the plaintiff waited too long to bring their lawsuit and it would be unfair to make the defendant litigate the case. According to the majority Supreme Court ruling, laches was originally used as an alternative defense when a plaintiff’s claim was not governed by a specific statute of limitation.

The original purpose of laches illustrates the court’s legal theory for permitting the Petrella case to proceed. The law of copyright infringement is found within Title 17 of the United States code and meaningful sections are found on the U.S. Copyright Office’s website. The statutory terms dealing with infringement as well as the remedies for a person claiming damages are very specific. A synonym for “equity” is “fairness.” In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that exactly what is “fair” in the context of a timeline for copyright infringement cases had already been defined by Congress. The court’s interpretation, through the laches defense, of “fairness” for a defendant could therefore not control whether or not Ms. Petrella’s case should be dismissed.

As the court pointed out, if Ms. Petrella had a winning case a dismissal based on a laches defense would basically give a cost-free license for Raging Bull throughout the copyright terms. The operative word being “if.” At trial Ms. Petrella, like any plaintiff, still has the burden of proving her case including the amount of any damages if the parties choose not to settle the matter. In that way, lawsuits are a lot like boxing. If you can’t get a knockout halfway through the fight you gotta wait for the scorecard at the end. The way it looks now, the verdict after trial may be the only way to know who will win the match.

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected]


New England's Strangest Laws

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.