descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Vincent Cusano, Individually D/B/A Vinnie Vincent Music, D/B/A Streetbeat Music F/k/a Vinnie Vincent v. Gene Klein, an Individual Stanley Eisen, an Individual the Kiss Company, a New York Corporation Gene Simmons Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Simstan Music Ltd., a Delaware Corporation Kisstory Ltd. Polygram Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Horipro Entertainment Group, a California Corporation, Vincent Cusano, Individually D/B/A Vinnie Vincent Music, D/B/A Streetbeat Music F/k/a Vinnie Vincent v. Gene Klein, an Individual Stanley Eisen, an Individual the Kiss Company, a New York Corporation Gene Simmons Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Simstan Music Ltd., a Delaware Corporation Kisstory Ltd. Polygram Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Horipro Entertainment Group, a California Corporation

Citations: 264 F.3d 936; 60 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1100; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7857; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19750; 38 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 105Docket: 99-56131

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 6, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a former guitarist of the band KISS, referred to as Cusano, pursued legal action against various parties associated with KISS, alleging unpaid royalties, defamation, and infringement of publicity rights. The legal proceedings were heavily influenced by Cusano's prior Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The district court dismissed several of Cusano's claims, including those for pre-petition royalties, due to his lack of standing and failure to schedule these assets in his bankruptcy filings. The court also dismissed defamation and right of publicity claims based on statute of limitations issues. Post-petition royalty claims related to compositions from the album 'Revenge' were also dismissed after the court validated the agreements assigning rights to the defendants. The Ninth Circuit partly reversed the district court’s ruling, reinstating some royalty claims, recognizing that scheduled assets had reverted to Cusano post-bankruptcy confirmation. However, it affirmed the dismissal of pre-petition claims which remained part of the bankruptcy estate. The appellate court also upheld the dismissal of defamation claims due to time-bar constraints and confirmed the award of attorney's fees to the defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding specific claims, with costs to be reassessed, while other aspects of the district court's rulings were affirmed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Abandonment and Asset Scheduling in Bankruptcy

Application: The court emphasized the importance of accurately scheduling assets in bankruptcy proceedings, explaining that unscheduled assets remain with the bankruptcy estate.

Reasoning: Failure to properly list an asset means it remains with the bankruptcy estate and does not revert to him, as established in case law.

Bankruptcy Estate Asset Reversion

Application: The appellate court found that assets scheduled as 'song rights' reverted to Cusano upon the confirmation of his reorganization plan, allowing him to claim post-petition royalties.

Reasoning: Cusano's rights to post-petition royalties and related damages from his pre-petition compositions reverted to him upon the confirmation of his plan.

Impact of Bankruptcy on Royalty Claims

Application: The case discusses how Cusano's Chapter 11 bankruptcy affected his ability to pursue royalties from songs composed before the bankruptcy filing, determining that unscheduled pre-petition royalties remained part of the bankruptcy estate.

Reasoning: The district court correctly determined that Cusano could not pursue his open book account claims for sums owed at the time of the petition, although he retains the right to sue for royalties due after the petition was filed.

Statute of Limitations for Defamation and Right of Publicity

Application: Cusano's defamation claims related to publications in 1992 and 1995 were dismissed as time-barred under California's one-year statute of limitations, and the right of publicity claims were similarly barred by a two-year statute of limitations.

Reasoning: The statute of limitations on defamation claims begins with the general distribution of the publication, regardless of a plaintiff's awareness of the claim, with exceptions for fraudulent concealment and lack of reasonable discovery not applying in this case.

Validity of Agreements and Summary Judgment

Application: The court upheld the validity of agreements assigning Cusano's rights to the 'Revenge' compositions due to Cusano's failure to respond to a handwriting analysis order, granting summary judgment to defendants.

Reasoning: The district court dismissed these claims after determining the 'Revenge' agreements were valid and binding due to Cusano's failure to respond in a timely manner to a court order regarding handwriting analysis.