Maldonado v. Valsyn, S.A.

Second Circuit

Maldonado v. Valsyn, S.A.

390 F. App'x 27

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2010

Docket09-4394-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 390 F. App'x 27 (Maldonado v. Valsyn, S.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maldonado v. Valsyn, S.A., 390 F. App'x 27 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants seek review of the September 23, 2009 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting appel-lees’ motion for summary judgment on all federal law claims and dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Appellants are salsa musicians who allege they properly rescinded their recording contracts with appellees in 2004, and that the subsequent exploitation of their works constitutes copyright infringement. The district court found appellants did not have the right to rescind the contracts at issue, and it is that ruling that appellants primarily attack on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

The district court properly found the equitable remedy of rescission was unavailable to plaintiffs. Under New York law, the “rescission of a contract is an extraordinary remedy.” Nolan v. Sam Fox Publ’g. Co., 499 F.2d 1394, 1397 (2d Cir.1974). Where there is an adequate remedy at law, i.e., money damages, then a party is not entitled to the equitable remedy of rescission. Rudman v. Cowles Commc’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 280 N.E.2d 867 (1972) (rescission “invoked only when there is lacking [a] complete and adequate remedy at law ánd where the status quo may be substantially restored”); see also New Paradigm Software Corp. v. New Era of Networks, Inc., 107 F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Vene gas-Hernandez v. Asociacion de Compositores v. Editores de Musica Latino Americana, 424 F.3d 50, 56-57 (1st Cir.2005) (applying New York law). Here, the record does not support appellant’s argument that they cannot be fully compensated with an award of money damages.

We have examined the remainder of appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants seek review of the September 23, 2009 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting appel-lees’ motion for summary judgment on all federal law claims and dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Appellants are salsa musicians who allege they properly rescinded their recording contracts with appellees in 2004, and that the subsequent exploitation of their works constitutes copyright infringement. The district court found appellants did not have the right to rescind the contracts at issue, and it is that ruling that appellants primarily attack on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

The district court properly found the equitable remedy of rescission was unavailable to plaintiffs. Under New York law, the “rescission of a contract is an extraordinary remedy.” Nolan v. Sam Fox Publ’g. Co., 499 F.2d 1394, 1397 (2d Cir.1974). Where there is an adequate remedy at law, i.e., money damages, then a party is not entitled to the equitable remedy of rescission. Rudman v. Cowles Commc’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 280 N.E.2d 867 (1972) (rescission “invoked only when there is lacking [a] complete and adequate remedy at law ánd where the status quo may be substantially restored”); see also New Paradigm Software Corp. v. New Era of Networks, Inc., 107 F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Vene gas-Hernandez v. Asociacion de Compositores v. Editores de Musica Latino Americana, 424 F.3d 50, 56-57 (1st Cir.2005) (applying New York law). Here, the record does not support appellant’s argument that they cannot be fully compensated with an award of money damages.

We have examined the remainder of appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F. App'x 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maldonado-v-valsyn-sa-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack