Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.

Beginning in 1981, the Franklin Mint Company (Franklin) (defendant) made and sold collectibles bearing the name and likeness of then Princess Diana of the United Kingdom. The Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (fund) (plaintiff) was formed after Diana’s 1999 death to raise money for charities that Diana supported during her life. With the permission of Diana’s estate (estate) (plaintiff), the fund authorized certain parties to use Diana’s name and likeness for commercial purposes. Franklin continued to sell its Diana-related products despite failing to obtain such authorization, leading the fund and estate to sue Franklin for, among other things, violating Diana’s postmortem right of publicity under California law. Franklin moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the law of Great Britain (where Diana had been domiciled) applied and that Great Britain did not recognize a postmortem right of publicity. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The district court based its decision on the facts that (1) California categorized a postmortem publicity right as a personal-property right, (2) California’s then-existing statute recognizing a postmortem publicity right did not contain a choice-of-law provision, and (3) California’s default choice-of-law statute for personal-property claims required application of the law of Diana’s domicile. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In 2000, California amended its postmortem right-of-publicity statute to state that the statute applied to cases in which liability, damages, and other remedies arose from acts that occurred in California. However, the statute continued to categorize a postmortem right of publicity as a personal-property right, and California’s default statute regarding choice of law for personal-property claims remained unchanged. The fund and estate then moved to reinstate their postmortem right-of-publicity claim, arguing that the amended statute was a choice-of-law provision that mandated the application of California law to their claim. The district court disagreed, ruling that British law continued to apply. The fund and estate appealed.