box1 header1
Entry Detail
Terms of Use The data on this site is for education, insights, and entertainment, and is not to be used for commercial purposes. If you want to use content for noncommercial purposes, be kind and give us due credit. To read the full Terms of Use, click here.
Options Conduct New Search
Copy Permalink to this Item
 
Parlet: P-Funk's Project
Highest Court C.D. California
Year Ended 2008
Plaintiffs Clinton, George
Defendants Universal Music Group
Universal Records
Other Business Entity of Artist(s)
Casablanca Records
Parlet
Parliament-Funkadelic
Polygram Records
Short Description George Clinton, well-known funk/soul/dance superstar and godfather, signed various production and recording agreements with Universal Music and its affiliates, both as an individual and as a producer for other artists. Of relevance here, Clinton also signed an artist, Parlet, to the label as well. In the contracts, a three year Objections Provision and Limitations Provision designated the time frame in which he could contest royalty payments. According to these provisons, he could contest payments through "specificied objections" and could bring legal action only within three years after statements were rendered. When Clinton audited Defendants' royalty payments, he concluded he was owed over $32 million (quite an oversight). Defendants did not respond to Clinton's audit, so he sued for various causes of action, including contracts, unjust enrichment, and equitable theories for relief. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, citing the provisions above. The court found the contractual limitations period barred all of Clinton's claims related to Parliament-related royalties; he had not filed his complaint within three years, but had merely sent letters alerting Defendants that specific objections would be forthcoming. Even if he had specifically objected to the complaints within the time period, his lack of legal action was damning. However, the Parlet agreement was not produced by either party, so summary judgment regarding those royalties was premature, but the court eventually ruled in Defendants' favor regarding that agreement as well, in part because of previously signed release. - LSW

Legal Issues
Contracts Breach Good Faith & Fair Dealing
    Payment & Performance
  Equitable Remedies Rescission
Copyrights Ownership Declaratory Judgment
General Equitable Actions Unjust Enrichment
  Equitable Remedies Accounting
    Constructive Trust


Opinions Clinton v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
2008 WL 4377649
C.D. California , August 22, 2008 ( No. CV 07-00672 PSG (JWJx) )


Clinton v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
2008 WL 2491699
C.D. California , June 19, 2008 ( No. CV 07-672 PSG (JWJx) )


Clinton v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
376 Fed.Appx. 780
Ninth Circuit , April 20, 2010 ( Nos. 08-56693, 08-56765 )


Errors Do you see something that is not correct?
The Discography is an ongoing project. Some entries in the database are displayed in various stages of completion. If you see spelling or grammar issues, they are likely to be corrected in the near future as they're noticed by editors (they're on the "To Do" list, we promise). But If you notice errors regarding facts, legal conclusions, or other information, please contact us to let us know. We've done our best, but can't assure perfection. Thank you.


Related Searches Parties
Business Entity of Artist(s) ( Other )
Casablanca Records ( Other )
Clinton, George ( Plaintiff )
Parlet ( Other )
Parliament-Funkadelic ( Other )
Polygram Records ( Other )
Universal Music Group ( Defendant )
Universal Records ( Defendant )

Legal Issues
Contracts / Breach / Good Faith & Fair Dealing
Contracts / Breach / Payment & Performance
Contracts / Equitable Remedies / Rescission
Copyrights / Ownership / Declaratory Judgment
General / Equitable Actions / Unjust Enrichment
General / Equitable Remedies / Accounting
General / Equitable Remedies / Constructive Trust

Courts
C.D. California (highest court)
Ninth Circuit


permalink to this entry