Regent Music Corporation v. Delphine Productions S.A.

Background

Regent Music Corporation filed a first amended complaint against Delphine Productions S.A. and Paul de Senneville. The opinion concerns motions to dismiss filed by both defendants.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the fourth claim, which alleged tortious interference with business relations or a contract. They also argued that, without that claim, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the three remaining declaratory claims. Their arguments included that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met and that the claims did not arise under the Copyright Act or another federal law. They also argued that they had never threatened to bring a copyright-infringement action.

Actual Controversy

The court also considered whether there was an “actual controversy” required for a declaratory judgment. The defendants represented that they did not intend to bring an action against Regent in the United States. De Senneville stated that he did not wish to bring a copyright-infringement action in the United States and that the French action concerned moral rights granted under French law. Delphine and the lawyer whose letters were cited by Regent stated that the lawyer had not been retained or authorized to act for Delphine.

The court compared the situation to a prior case in which a party’s unconditional and permanent promise not to sue eliminated an existing trademark controversy. The court found that the current representations were different because neither Delphine nor de Senneville appeared to have specifically renounced the right to sue for copyright infringement in the United States.

Order

The court did not grant or deny the motions to dismiss in this opinion. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to appear by telephone on February 28, 2022, to clarify the issues. The court directed them to discuss whether the defendants would permanently renounce copyright-infringement claims in the United States concerning the use of the composition in “Narcos: Mexico”; whether royalties under the Administration Agreement or alleged extended term had been paid; whether Regent had used or authorized the use of other songs from the catalog; whether either defendant intended to bring actions concerning those songs; and the status of the French action, including whether its conclusion would make an anti-suit injunction moot.