McMunigal v. Bloch
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2010 WL 5399219 (2010)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Kevin McMunigal (plaintiff) was a law professor in Ohio. Kate Bloch (defendant) was a law professor in California. The two agreed to author a criminal-law casebook together and entered into an agreement with Aspen Publishers. Under the agreement, Aspen had all rights to the casebook and the authors were jointly and severally liable for the obligations in the agreement. Throughout the drafting of the casebook, Bloch repeatedly missed deadlines, delaying the release of the casebook. As a result, Aspen decided not to publish a revised edition of the casebook. McMunigal and Bloch then allegedly reached a separation agreement, agreeing to separate as authors and for each to hold sole copyright to their respective parts of the casebook. Aspen offered each party their own contracts to write separate criminal-law books pending formal execution of the separation agreement. McMunigal sought to submit his individual casebook proposal to Aspen, but Bloch repudiated the separation agreement, causing Aspen to withdraw its offer to McMunigal. McMunigal subsequently filed suit in federal district court, seeking declaratory judgment regarding the ownership of the casebook or, in the alternative, a partition of the copyright for the casebook. Bloch filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the ownership was shared as a joint work rather than a collective work.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Illston, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.