Roth v. Garcia Marquez
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
942 F.2d 617 (1991)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Richard Roth (plaintiff) was a California-based movie producer. Gabriel Garcia Marquez (defendant) was a author who lived in Mexico. Carman Balcells (defendant) was Marquez’s literary agent who was headquartered in Spain. In 1986, Roth contacted Marquez expressing his interest in making a film based on one of his books. Marquez was willing to sell the film rights if certain conditions were met as to the option amount, director, and shooting location for the film. Roth traveled numerous times to Mexico and Spain to negotiate the deal, and repeated calls, letters, and faxes passed between the parties. Both Marquez and Balcells travelled to California once and met with Roth on the side to finalize the deal. When Roth finally sent the formal agreement to Balcells, the conditions were omitted; the parties reached an impasse, and Marquez never signed a formal agreement. In 1989, Roth filed suit seeking a declaration to determine the status of his rights to produce the film. The district court denied Marquez and Balcells’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the parties never entered into a binding agreement. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
