banner6_r1_c1.gif banner6_r1_c2.gif
banner6_r2_c2.gif banner6_r2_c3.gif banner6_r2_c14.gif
banner6_r3_c3.gif
banner6_r4_c3.gif banner6_r4_c4.gif banner6_r4_c5.gif banner6_r4_c6.gif banner6_r4_c7.gif banner6_r4_c8.gif banner6_r4_c9.gif banner6_r4_c10.gif banner6_r4_c11.gif banner6_r4_c12.gif banner6_r4_c13.gif
banner6_r5_c4.gif banner6_r5_c6.gif banner6_r5_c8.gif banner6_r5_c10.gif banner6_r5_c12.gif

news:

news main page

07/14/04
All Legal Action is Over!

06/22/04
It's Getting Crazier
and Crazier Folks!

01/30/04
Update on the Lawsuits Against Dead Kennedys

06/20/03
Excerpts From The Appellate Decision

06/19/03
DKs Completely Vindicated In Appeal

04/09/03
Statement of Facts

11/12/02
DKs Respond to Lawsuit

08/28/02
DKs v ATR Appeal

03/27/02:
DKs Puzzled By Biafra's Latest Legal Maneuver


01/16/01:
DKs Plan New Releases


10/29/98:
DKs Sue Jello Biafra

10/01/98:
DKs Sever Ties with ATR

08/28/02

DEAD KENNEDYS d/b/a DECAY MUSIC   vs.
JELLO BIAFRA d/b/a ALTERNATIVE TENTACLES

____________________________________________

COURT OF APPEAL - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
No.  A094272
________________________________________

RESPONDENTSí BRIEF AND
CROSS-APPELLANTSí OPENING BRIEF
___________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.   INTRODUCTION
II.  STATEMENT OF FACTS
      A. The Parties
      B. Dead Kennedys
      C. The Decay Music Partnership
      D. Alternative Tentacles Records
      E. Biafraís Fiduciary and Contractual Breaches
      F. Biafraís Deception About Underpayment of Royalties
      G. Termination of the ATR Agreement
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      A. Commencement of Action
      B. Removal and Remand
      C. Answer and Cross-Complaint(s)
      D. Resolution of Post-Lawsuit Sales by ATR/Mordam
      E. Biafraís Federal Court Action
      F. Trial of the Action
      G. Evidence at Trial
      H. The Jury Verdicts
      I. The Trial Courtís Statement of Decision
      J. Judgment and Appeal(s)
IV. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL
      A. Substantial Evidence Supports the Courtís Factual Determination that as Among the Decay Music Partners, the Bandís Musical Compositions or Songs Were Owned in the Percentages Set Out in the 1991 Partnership Agreement.
      B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Courtís Determination That the 1991 Partnership Agreement Was a "Writing" Satisfying the Copyright Actís Statute of Frauds and Transferring "Ownership" From the Partners to the Decay Music Partnership
      C. The Partnershipís Exclusive Rights Did Not Terminate Upon Dissolution of the Decay Music Partnership
      D. The Partnershipís Damage Claims for Breach of Contract Against Biafra Were Not Time-Barred
      E. There Was Substantial Evidence That Biafraís Partners Detrimentally Relied Upon His Misrepresentations in His Attempt to Fraudulently Induce Them to Enter into a Perpetual Worldwide Contract with ATR
      F. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juryís Verdicts Against Biafra With Respect to UK/Europe Distribution and the Breach of Fiduciary Duty to His Partners
      G. The Bandís Album Artwork Belongs to the Partnership
V.  CONCLUSION RE APPEAL
VI. ARGUMENT ON CROSS-APPEAL
      A. The Trial Court Committed Error in Granting Biafraís Petition for Dissolution
      B. The Trial Court Erred in Overturning the Juryís Verdict on the Issue of the Partnershipís Ownership of Rights in the Bandís Creative Works
      C. The Jury Verdict Against East Bay Ray is Internally Inconsistent and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
VII. CONCLUSION RE CROSS-APPEAL

 

top of page


Contact: info@deadkennedysnews.com

last updated 07/14/04