United States District Court District of Connecticut
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARTHA HART, Plaintiff, No. 3:10cv0975 (SRU) v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTM‟T, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS This claim arises from a former business relationship between the plaintiff‟s deceased husband and one of the defendants. The defendants are World Wrestling Entertainment (“WWE”) and its CEOs, Vince and Linda McMahon (“Vince” and “Linda,” or collectively “the McMahons”). The plaintiff is Martha Hart (“Martha”), wife of Owen Hart (“Owen”). Owen was a wrestler affiliated with WWE. In 1996 Owen and WWE entered into a contract that governed WWE‟s right to use Owen‟s image, and Owen‟s right to receive profits from WWE‟s use of his image. Martha, on behalf of herself and the Estate of Owen Hart (“the Estate”), has filed suit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, false association, invasion of privacy, accounting, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), violation of the right of publicity, and negligent supervision. WWE and the McMahons have both filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff‟s first amended complaint. Docs. ## 34, 36. The defendants have also filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the first amended complaint. Doc. # 32. For the reasons that follow, the McMahons‟ motion to dismiss is granted, and WWE‟s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to strike is granted. I. Background On July 1, 1996, Owen signed a Booking Agreement with Titan Sports, Inc., the predecessor to WWE (“Booking Agreement”). Amend. Compl. at ¶ 12. That agreement is at the heart of the breach of contract claims. The Booking Agreement distinguished between two kinds of intellectual property. The first was “Original Intellectual Property;” those rights were assigned to Titan/WWE, but were to revert to Owen upon termination of the agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. The Booking Agreement states in section 3.1 that: [A]ll service marks, trademarks and any and all other distinctive and identifying indicia under which WRESTLER claims any rights, including but not limited to his/her legal name, his/her ring name, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines and themes, which are owned by WRESTLER or in which WRESTLER has any rights anywhere in the world (collectively, the “Original Intellectual Property”) are described in Schedule A hereto. Id., Ex. A at 4. Schedule A of the Booking Agreement, which is entitled “Original Intellectual Property,” is blank. Id. at 21. The second category of intellectual property was “New Intellectual Property,” which was defined as: With the exception of the Original Intellectual Property, service marks, trademarks and/or distinctive and identifying indicia, including ring name, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines, themes, used by or associated with WRESTLER‟s performance in the business of professional wrestling or sports entertainment during the term of this Agreement. Id. at ¶ 16. Those rights were assigned to Titan/WWE in perpetuity, notwithstanding any termination of the Booking Agreement. Id. Owen was to receive 25% of net receipts from licensed commercial products utilizing Owen‟s Original and/or New Intellectual Property, or his pro rata share of 25% of the proceeds of such licensed products, when used in conjunction with other talent (“licensed product - 2 - royalties”). Id. at ¶ 18. He was also to receive 5%1 of the net receipts from the direct sale of commercial products utilizing Owen‟s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or his pro rata share of 25% of sale proceeds when Owen‟s Original and/or New Intellectual Property was used in conjunction with other talent (“direct sales royalties”). Id. at ¶ 19. Finally, Owen was to receive 25% of the net receipts from video products utilizing Owen‟s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or his pro rata share of 25% of such proceeds when Owen‟s Original and/or New Intellectual Property was used in conjunction with other talent (“video royalties”). Id. at ¶ 20. According to the plaintiff, Owen and Titan/WWE agreed that the Booking Agreement would terminate upon Owen‟s death, but that Titan/WWE‟s royalty payment obligations did not end. Id. at ¶ 21. On May 23, 1999, Owen was killed while performing a wrestling stunt during a WWE event. The plaintiff alleges that royalties are due and owing to the Estate. Id. at ¶ 101. After Owen‟s death, Martha started the Owen Hart Foundation (“the Foundation”), which is devoted to charitable causes, including scholarships and housing. Id. at ¶ 27. Martha believes that the Foundation is the “antithesis” of the work done by the defendants, and has sought to distance the Foundation from the defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 27, 30-31. The Foundation is not a plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff‟s complaint centers on WWE‟s production and sale of a video called Hart & Soul: The Hart Family Anthology. Id. at ¶ 34. The video purports to chronicle the history of the Hart family of wrestlers, including Owen, his parents, and siblings. Id. at ¶ 35. It uses Owen‟s legal name, and contains several family photos of him. Id. at ¶¶ 38-40. The plaintiff claims that 1 This figure appears to be a typographical error, but the contract does say 5% rather than 25%. - 3 - the defendants have used Owen‟s name and likeness to associate him with WWE, which has tarnished the reputation of the Foundation. Id. at ¶ 44. Martha also alleges that WWE, under the direction of the McMahons, has made other commercial uses of Owen‟s name and likeness, including multiple DVDs, television programs, the WWE website, and online subscription service through WWE.com and the WWE Encyclopedia. Id. at ¶¶ 48-49. Before bringing this case, the plaintiff filed a motion for an interim injunction in Canadian court. See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 4. The injunction sought to bar release of the Hart & Soul video. The Canadian court denied the injunction and stayed the case, stating that future proceedings should occur in Connecticut courts. II. Standard of Review A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is designed “merely to assess the legal feasibility of a complaint, not to assay the weight of evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 1980)). When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and decide whether it is plausible that the plaintiff has a valid claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). Under Twombly, “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and assert a cause of action with enough heft to show entitlement to relief and “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 550 U.S. at 555, 570; see also - 4 - Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940 (“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”). The plausibility standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal obligates the plaintiff to “provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief” through more than “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks omitted). Plausibility at the pleading stage is nonetheless distinct from probability, and “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the claims] is improbable, and . recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Id. at 556 (quotation marks omitted). III. Discussion A. Contract Claims2 1. Breach of Contract – Unauthorized Use of Original Intellectual Property Martha alleges that WWE breached its contract with the decedent through its unauthorized use of Original Intellectual Property. As noted above, Schedule A, the section of the contract that was supposed to list all Original Intellectual Property, is blank. Under the contract, all intellectual property that is not listed as Original Intellectual Property is classified as New Intellectual Property. The defendants argue that the absence of any intellectual property listed in Schedule A means there is no Original Intellectual Property. Martha responds that Schedule A is blank because Owen retained his right to any Original Intellectual Property, and never bestowed it on the defendants in the first place. Plaintiff‟s argument goes against the plain language of the Booking Agreement. Section 3.2 of the Booking Agreement clearly states that: 2 All parties agree that, under the Booking Agreement‟s choice-of-law clause, all contract claims should be interpreted in accordance with Connecticut law. - 5 - With the exception of the Original Intellectual Property, any service marks, trademarks and/or distinctive and identifying indicia, including ring names, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines, themes, used by or associated with WRESTLER’s performance in the business of professional wrestling or sports entertainment during the term of this Agreement (collectively the “New Intellectual Property”) are hereby assigned to and shall belong to PROMOTER in perpetuity with PROMOTER retaining all such ownership rights exclusively throughout the world notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement. Amend. Compl., Ex. A at 4 (emphasis added).