Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
appeal_fact_check [2017/01/04 18:44] – removes byline since based on reporting by OSwriter on TrekBBS. Carlos Pedrazaappeal_fact_check [2017/01/06 13:57] – updates w/details on all five cases Carlos Pedraza
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 Peters' official statement glossed over the heavy blow federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] dealt to his case by focusing on Axanar's prospects at the next level in the federal legal system — the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Peters' official statement glossed over the heavy blow federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] dealt to his case by focusing on Axanar's prospects at the next level in the federal legal system — the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- 
-{{page>fact check}} 
  
 > Depending on the outcome of the trial, Axanar may choose to appeal the verdict to the Ninth Circuit, where [Axanar attorney] [[Erin Ranahan]] is 5-0. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is also known to favor artist rights. So the story of Axanar continues …(([[http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/04/official-statement-from-alec-peters/|Statement by Alec Peters]], Fan Film Factor blog, 1/4/17.)) > Depending on the outcome of the trial, Axanar may choose to appeal the verdict to the Ninth Circuit, where [Axanar attorney] [[Erin Ranahan]] is 5-0. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is also known to favor artist rights. So the story of Axanar continues …(([[http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/04/official-statement-from-alec-peters/|Statement by Alec Peters]], Fan Film Factor blog, 1/4/17.))
 +
 +{{page>fact check}}
  
 ===== The Real Record of the Ninth Circuit ===== ===== The Real Record of the Ninth Circuit =====
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 > This case is being held in Southern California, and if it gets appealed it’ll get appealed to the Ninth Circuit – one of the most liberal circuits in the country, and pro-artists’ rights. Even if we were to lose at trial, an appeal would likely be very positive for us. > This case is being held in Southern California, and if it gets appealed it’ll get appealed to the Ninth Circuit – one of the most liberal circuits in the country, and pro-artists’ rights. Even if we were to lose at trial, an appeal would likely be very positive for us.
- 
- 
-[{{ :alec_peters.jpg?direct&150|Axanar defendant **Alec Peters**}}] 
  
 ==== Most Liberal? ==== ==== Most Liberal? ====
  
 However, the "most liberal circuit" characterization is not based on fact. It's a longstanding trope of the conservative media that is largely based on the number of Ninth Circuit cases that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. But that has more to do with the disproportionate number of cases heard by the Ninth Circuit — which covers nine states and about 20 percent of the U.S. population — than the ideological inclinations of the judges who sit on its bench. However, the "most liberal circuit" characterization is not based on fact. It's a longstanding trope of the conservative media that is largely based on the number of Ninth Circuit cases that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. But that has more to do with the disproportionate number of cases heard by the Ninth Circuit — which covers nine states and about 20 percent of the U.S. population — than the ideological inclinations of the judges who sit on its bench.
 +
 +[{{ :alec_peters.jpg?direct&150|Axanar defendant **Alec Peters**}}]
  
 === The Biggest Circuit === === The Biggest Circuit ===
Line 64: Line 63:
 ===== Ranahan's 5-0 Record ===== ===== Ranahan's 5-0 Record =====
  
-Peters's statement touted its attorney Ranahan's successful "5-0 record" of appeals before the Ninth Circuit. **AxaMonitor** has only been able to confirm four such cases where she was listed as counsel, but in none of them was she "counsel of record," the lead attorney who actually argued the case. And two of those four cases were voluntarily dismissed before the Ninth Circuit issued a decision.+Peters's statement touted its attorney Ranahan's successful "5-0 record" of appeals before the Ninth Circuit. **AxaMonitor**'s examination of court records found the five cases, but in none of them was she "counsel of record," the lead attorney who actually argued the case. And two of those cases were voluntarily dismissed before the Ninth Circuit issued a decision.
  
-==== Axanar's Chances ====+==== Appellate Cases ====
  
-The two most relevant cases where Ranahan was listed (again, not as the lead attorney) don't really shed much light on how the Ninth Circuit would respond to an appeal in a case like Axanar's. The first case, UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, involved the application of the safe harbor provision under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The second case, Graham-Sult v. Clainos, dealt with misappropriation of intellectual property.+Ranahan's five appellate cases do not evince the clear-cut victory streak claimed by Peters: 
 + 
 +  * **Graham-Sult v. Clainos** \\ <wrap indent>Ranahan and her firm represented a group of defendants in a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement among other claims. While a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed large portions of the trial court's decision in favor of the defendants, it actually //reversed// the dismissal of the copyright infringement claim, meaning Ranahan and her colleagues lost that part of the appeal.</wrap> 
 +  * **UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners** \\ <wrap indent>Ranahan and her firm successfully defended a website accused of copyright infringement by Universal Music Group. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants. The decision was based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is not applicable to the Axanar case.</wrap> 
 +  * **American Bullion, Inc. v. Regal Assets, LLC** \\ <wrap indent>This was a false advertising case that did not involve copyright infringement. Ranahan entered an appearance in the case nine days before the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal.</wrap> 
 +  * **Henderson v. The J.M. Smucker Company** \\ <wrap indent>This was another false advertising case (actually, a denial of a class action certification) that was dismissed before the Ninth Circuit heard formal arguments.</wrap> 
 +  * **Nafal v. Carter** \\ <wrap indent>This was a lawsuit brought against several dozen defendants over alleged copyright infringement in a Jay-Z song. Ranahan defended a foreign company that was one of the defendants dismissed from the case early in the proceedings. Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision granting all defendants summary judgment, it appears Ranahan did not actively participate in this appeal.</wrap> 
 + 
 +==== Axanar's Chances ====
  
-In both cases, Ranahan's client supported affirming, not reversing, the district court. That's critical because, as noted above, affirmed decisions are statistically much more likely than reversals. And in Graham-Sult, the Ninth Circuit actually reversed on one issue, //against// the position advocated by Ranahan's client. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}+In the three cases actually decided by the Ninth Circuit, Ranahan's client had prevailed in the lower court, meaning her record is for cases in which her firm had prevailed at trial, not cases where she sought to overturn the lower-court decision — statistically, a much more difficult proposition. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
  
 ---- ----
 **Keywords** {{tag>appeal Erin_Ranahan defendants defense counsel fact_check}} **Keywords** {{tag>appeal Erin_Ranahan defendants defense counsel fact_check}}