Goodman v. Lee

• Decision Date: 01 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-30071,95-30071
• Citation: 78 F.3d 1007
• Parties: , 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,521, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 Shirley GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audrey LEE and Nikki N. Lee, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1007

78 F.3d 1007

64 USLW 2691, 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,521,

38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354

Shirley GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audrey LEE and Nikki N. Lee, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 95-30071.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 1, 1996.

Richard E. Bennett, New York City, David Robert Paddison, Covington, LA, for plaintiff-appellee.

Irwin Spiegel Osher, Nathaniel Albert Osher, The Osher Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, Richard A. Goins, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA, for defendants-appellants and movants.

George R. Alvey, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Nikki N. Lee and Atlantic Music Corp.

David L. Carrigee, New Orleans, LA, Robert D. Hoffman, Jr., Burke & Mayer, New Orleans, LA, for Atlantic Music Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JOLLY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellee Shirley Goodman filed this action in 1985 against Defendants-Appellants Audrey and Nikki Lee (the Lees), respectively the widow and daughter of Leonard Lee (Leonard). Goodman sought inter alia a declaration that, together with Leonard, she was a co-author of the rock and roll hit "Let the Good Times Roll," and an accounting from the Lees for all royalties received from the use and exploitation of that song. Goodman thereby let roll a seemingly endless legal battle, instigating litigation that has lingered in the federal courts for more than ten years. After a jury trial and several post-trial hearings, the district court entered a final judgment declaring Goodman a joint owner of the copyright of "Let the Good Times Roll"; ordering the Register of Copyrights to identify her as a co-author and joint owner of the copyright registration; and awarding her one-half of all royalties received by the Lees from 1976 to 1993, together with prejudgment interest computed for those dates at the rates set forth in the Louisiana Civil Code. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

From 1953 through 1961, the young Goodman and her childhood friend, Leonard, worked together as a rock and roll duo, composing and recording songs under the professional name of "Shirley and Lee." In 1956, "Shirley and Lee" composed their biggest hit, "Let the Good Times Roll," a song which was eventually to be rerecorded by such well known artists as Barbra Streisand, B.B. King, and Ray Charles. Even though Goodman asserts--and the jury found--that she co-authored "Let the Good Times Roll" with Leonard, when the song was copyrighted as a result of Leonard's efforts, he was listed as its sole author. Consequently, he In 1984, after the Lees had authorized the renewal of the copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 304(a), ¹ Goodman demanded payment of her share of the royalties that they had received from the song. The following year she filed this suit against the Lees in federal district court, seeking a declaration that (1) "Let the Good Times Roll" constituted a joint work under the provisions of the Copyright Act, ² and (2) her name should be included on the copyright registration as a joint author and co-owner of the copyright. Goodman also asked the court to order an accounting from the Lees for one-half of the royalties received from the song, and she brought inter alia a state law fraud claim against Audrey Lee. Even though Leonard's succession was judicially opened in 1977 and has never been closed, Goodman named neither the estate nor the succession representative ³ as a defendant in the action.

                received all of the royalties from "Let the Good Times Roll" from 1956 to the time of his death in 1976.   After Leonard died, the Lees continued collecting the income from the song
                

The district court initially dismissed Goodman's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But, in Goodman I, we reversed that determination, holding that the district court had exclusive original jurisdiction over Goodman's action. ⁴ We reasoned that her claim for a declaratory judgment establishing her co-authorship of the song was a federal question arising under the federal copyright laws. ⁵ In January of 1988, the case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Goodman. The jury found that Goodman was a co-author of "Let the Good Times Roll" and that she "did not know or should not have known" until 1984 that Leonard had listed himself as the sole author on the copyright register of the song. In 1995, in its final judgment, the district court awarded Goodman $670,899.39--a sum comprising (1) one-half of all royalties received by the Lees from 1976 to 1993, and (2) prejudgment interest computed from 1976 to 1993 at the rates set by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2924. ⁶ The Lees timely appealed to this court.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

The Lees first contend that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit three items into evidence: (1) the 1956 Certificate of Copyright Registration for "Let the Good Times Roll"; (2) a published sheet music edition of the song that credited authorship of the song solely to Leonard Lee; and (3) music publishing statements received by Goodman between 1954 and 1981. The court refused to admit these documents because the Lees had neglected to identify them as exhibits in their pretrial order. We have consistently held that the determination whether to admit into evidence exhibits that are not listed in the pre-trial order is within the "broad discretion" of the

                district court. 7  Moreover, a district court need not consider matters omitted from a pre-trial order unless such consideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. 8  In the instant case, none dispute that the Lees not only knew of the existence of the subject documents for at least two years before trial but also had ready access to them.   As the Lees have given no compelling justification for their failure to include these items in the pre-trial order, and as we are not convinced that the district court's decision produces manifest injustice, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit these exhibits
                

B. JURY INSTRUCTION

The Lees next contend that the district court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of constructive or inquiry notice. According to the Lees, without an instruction explaining the doctrine of constructive notice, the jurors "could not reasonably be expected to interpret" the following interrogatory: "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Shirley Goodman did not know or should not have known that Leonard Lee listed himself as the sole author on the copyright register for 'Let the Good Times Roll' until 1984?" The Lees concede that at the time of the trial they failed to object to the jury charge given by the court.

We have repeatedly held that jury instructions issued without objection can lead to reversal only if plain error is demonstrated. ⁹ Reviewing for plain error entails determining whether "the deficient charge was likely responsible for an incorrect verdict which in itself creates a substantial injustice or resulted in a plain error so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice." ¹⁰

We find no such error in the instant case. The Lees vastly overstate the level of guidance needed by the jury to understand the expression "should have known." Although the interrogatory is not as detailed as the Lees have now decided that they would like it to have been, imprecision alone does not warrant reversal. ¹¹ All in all, we are not convinced that the failure to issue an instruction explaining or defining constructive or inquiry notice resulted in a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, we decline the Lees' invitation to reverse the jury's verdict on this ground.

C. SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS

Our analysis of the remainder of the Lees' arguments requires a disentangling of the relationship among Goodman's claims. This case is complicated by the fact that Goodman's claims are governed to some degree by federal law but in larger part by state law. We therefore pause for a moment to unravel the claims and to examine the applicability of federal and Louisiana law.

In Goodman I we held that the federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over Goodman's action because her request for a declaratory judgment to establish co-authorship under the Copyright Act necessitated the application and interpretation of the copyright ownership provisions of the Act. ¹² Those provisions define a joint work and stipulate that joint authors of a work are co-owners of a copyright in the work. ¹³ In the instant case, the jury found Goodman to The applicability of federal law ends with that determination, as Goodman's claim for an accounting is governed in all respects by state law. It is widely recognized that "[a] co-owner of a copyright must account to other co-owners for any profits he earns from the licensing or use of the copyright...." ¹⁵ Significantly, "the duty to account does not derive from the copyright law's proscription of infringement. Rather, it comes from '... general principles of law governing the rights of co-owners.' " ¹⁶ As those general principles are rooted in state law, we look to the law of Louisiana for answers to the remaining issues presented by this appeal. ¹⁷

                be a joint author with Leonard of "Let the Good Times Roll." 14  As that finding is supported by the record, under the terms of the federal Copyright Act Goodman is a co-owner of the copyright in the song
                

1. Louisiana Law of Co-Ownership

A Louisiana court may require a co-owner in possession to account to a co-owner out of possession for all revenues derived from the jointly owned property. ¹⁸ Stated differently, a co-owner has a right of action against another co-owner to recover his or her share of the fruits or products of the property held in common. ¹⁹ Accordingly On the other hand, Goodman is not entitled to recover any part of the royalties received by...