Magee v. The Walt Disney Company

Background

Quincy Magee, proceeding without a lawyer, brought one claim for breach of a 2014 separation agreement with American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. He alleged that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company failed to provide certifications of amounts allegedly due, failed to compensate him for time and expenses related to cooperation, and failed to fulfill a fiduciary duty. He sought revenue and value relating to musical rights, copyrights, recordings, motion-picture rights, film and television rights, intellectual property, real estate, and patents, which he valued at more than $50 billion.

The defendants answered after the deadline and moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. They also requested an anti-filing injunction, which is an order restricting repetitive or abusive new filings. Magee filed motions for sanctions and default judgment, later filed his own motion for judgment on the pleadings, and submitted documents to the court by email without sending copies to opposing counsel. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for a report and recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court adopted Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation in full. It rejected Magee’s requests for default judgment because the defendants had filed an answer, which was enough to prevent default even though it was late. The court also stated that it would excuse any default under the circumstances, including the defendants’ single missed deadline during the early weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. The court denied Magee’s later, duplicative default-judgment motions as well.

The court denied Magee’s motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. It found no evidence that the defendants had engaged in the bad-faith conduct, misrepresentations, or unsupported legal or factual arguments covered by that rule. The documents Magee submitted concerning an alleged attempt to take over his email account and alleged surveillance did not mention the defendants and did not establish that they engaged in the alleged conduct.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings because the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Magee did not identify a separation-agreement provision requiring the specific payments he claimed, describe the time and expenses for which he sought reimbursement, identify his alleged contributions to particular films, or explain the contractual basis for compensation for those contributions. The court noted that the agreement waived claims against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., preserved rights in one song, and provided reimbursement for time and expenses connected to reasonable cooperation in certain proceedings. The court concluded that the agreement did not provide a plausible basis for Magee’s claim to billions of dollars for unspecified contributions to Disney films.

The court granted Magee limited leave to amend within 60 days because he was representing himself. It warned that a further attempt was unlikely to be allowed if an amended complaint remained deficient. The court also found an anti-filing injunction appropriate based on Magee’s history of substantially similar lawsuits, repetitive motions, the burden imposed on the defendants and courts, and its conclusion that other sanctions would be inadequate. The injunction permanently barred Magee from filing new cases in the Southern District of New York presenting substantially the same claims without the court’s prior authorization.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan overruled Magee’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. The court dismissed Magee’s complaint with leave to amend; granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an anti-filing injunction; and denied Magee’s April 29 motion for sanctions, April 29 request for default judgment, August 17 motion for sanctions, September 10 and September 14 motions for default judgment, and motion to file documents under seal. It denied Magee’s own motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot and denied his motion for a default-judgment hearing as moot. The court also ordered that previously submitted ex parte email documents would not be considered unless properly filed, barred further default-judgment motions based on the late answer, and denied fee-free appeal status after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.