Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellants, Eric “Kiki” Spangler and Steven Bigler, challenged the district court's summary judgment and award of attorney’s fees in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc. The district court initially dismissed the claims based on a one-year statute of limitations and various affirmative defenses. Upon review, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of claims related to First Amendment protections, federal preemption under the Copyright Act, California choice of law principles, and the Lanham Act, citing the precedent case Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch. The court conducted a de novo review of the statute of limitations, confirming that the right of publicity claim was timely under California's two-year statute, thereby validating Bigler's claim. Consequently, the attorney's fees award to Abercrombie was vacated, with instructions for reconsideration post-remand. The appellate court denied the appellants' request for reassignment to a different judge, finding no bias or exceptional circumstances. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The case was partially reversed, partially affirmed, and remanded for further proceedings, with a disposition not suitable for publication per Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of the Lanham Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims related to the Lanham Act were also reinstated by the appellate court.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the appellants' claims regarding... the Lanham Act...
Award of Attorney's Feessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court vacated the award of attorney's fees to Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., indicating it should be reconsidered upon remand.
Reasoning: As a result, the court found Bigler's claim to be valid and vacated the award of attorney's fees to Abercrombie, stating that the issue of fees should be reconsidered after all proceedings are concluded on remand.
California Choice of Law Principlessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found error in the lower court's application of California choice of law principles.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the appellants' claims regarding... California choice of law principles...
Federal Preemption under the Copyright Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court also reversed the district court's decision concerning federal preemption under the Copyright Act.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the appellants' claims regarding... federal preemption under the Copyright Act...
First Amendment Protectionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellants' claims regarding First Amendment protections.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the appellants' claims regarding First Amendment protections...
Reassignment of Judgessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the appellants' request for reassignment to a different district judge due to lack of bias or exceptional circumstances.
Reasoning: The appellants requested reassignment to a different district judge, but the court denied this request, finding no evidence of personal bias or exceptional circumstances warranting reassignment.
Statute of Limitations under California Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the right of publicity claim was filed within the permissible two-year statute of limitations period under California law.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the statute of limitations de novo, confirming that the claims centered on the misuse of the appellants' images for commercial gain, with the right of publicity claim being timely under California's two-year statute of limitations.