Elliott v. Cartagena

Background

Eric A. Elliott sued more than 25 defendants, alleging that he was a co-author and co-owner of “All The Way Up” and that defendants infringed his copyright. The moving defendants included Joseph Anthony Cartagena, Reminisce Smith Mackie, Remynisce Music, Joey and Ryan Music, Sneaker Addict Touring LLC, Terror Squad Productions, Inc., Terror Squad Entertainment, RNG (Rap’s New Generation), and Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

In March 2016, Elliott and Cartagena met at an IHOP. Cartagena gave Elliott a document and a $5,000 check. Elliott signed the document, left it with Cartagena, and later deposited the check. The signed document could not later be found. Cartagena and his attorney said the missing document was likely held by Cartagena’s then-manager, Elis Pacheco. After the court required further efforts to locate the original, defendants made multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve Pacheco with subpoenas and used alternative service by certified mail, email, and Facebook.

Summary-judgment ruling

The court considered defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law.

The court held that the draft agreement was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 1003 and 1004. Rule 1003 permits a duplicate to be used like an original, and Rule 1004 permits other evidence of a document’s contents when the original is lost or cannot be obtained through available court procedures. The court found that the draft was the document Elliott signed, that the original had been lost, that defendants had not acted in bad faith, and that the original could not be obtained through judicial process.

Assignment of rights

Applying Florida law because the agreement selected Florida law, the court found the contract clear and unambiguous. It stated that Elliott permanently transferred all ownership, copyright, and other rights in the master recording and underlying composition. The court also found that the agreement identified Elliott despite a misspelling in the signature block, because it contained identifying information from his driver’s license and clearly referred to the intended parties.

The court rejected Elliott’s argument that the transfer was invalid under the Copyright Act’s writing requirement. Elliott admitted signing an agreement, and the draft was admissible to establish what that agreement said. The court also rejected his argument that the contract lacked consideration. Elliott received and cashed the $5,000 check, which the court found was the payment described in the agreement as full and complete consideration.

The court further rejected Elliott’s argument that earlier oral promises about additional compensation or future collaboration invalidated the agreement. The agreement contained a merger clause stating that it represented the parties’ entire understanding and that no additional compensation was owed. The court held that those alleged promises contradicted the agreement’s unambiguous terms and could not support claims for fraudulent inducement or negligent misrepresentation.

Other claims and disposition

The court rejected Elliott’s fiduciary-duty, accounting, and equitable-trust arguments. It found no evidence of a fiduciary relationship between Elliott and Cartagena and held that the agreement eliminated any continuing co-ownership relationship. The court also stated that Elliott’s additional claims—including unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, money had and received, negligence, and civil conspiracy—failed because he had assigned all rights in the song and had no right to future compensation.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Although the motion was filed by only some defendants, the court also dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants because Elliott’s transfer of all rights left those claims without a basis. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.