|
|
LANDMARK CASES
To encourage attorneys, professors, law students, artists and other advocates to promote and enforce the rights of artists, we provide certain pleadings and documents in .pdf format related to the landmark litigation conducted by this firm. Click on the titles below to view the case notes and list of documents related to each case.
LITIGATION CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM
LILLI ANN MURAL CASE: Campusano v. Cort, et al.
(Pleadings, Injunctions, Court Orders)
AYALA v. YU
(Illustrated Complaint)
RELATED LITIGATION
POLARA v. SEYMOUR AND CASEY
(USDC-NY Court Order Upholding Cause of Action under
VARA, "Recognized Stature" is a Jury Question)
LEVITON v. HOLLYWOOD ARTS/CULTURE
(Constitutionality of VARA: Takings Clause)v
LEVITON v. HOLLYWOOD ART & CULTURE
Leviton is a Florida District Court case in which this firm was not involved. The defendants claimed that VARA was unconstitutional on several grounds. The Attorney General drafted and filed a very useful opinion and brief stating that VARA is indeed constitutional. The Attorney General's opinion is included here for reference and research purposes. We have found that defendants who raise this argument are easily dissuaded when they hear of or read this Attorney General opinion.
(Click on a document title to download a .pdf file of the document.)
-
Certification of Constitutional Challenge (1)
-
Motion
by the US to Intervene in Order to Defend the Constitutionality of the
Visual Artists' Rights Act of 1990 (1)
- Memo
in Support of Motion by the US to Intervene in Order to Defend the Constitutionality
of the VARA of 1990 (3)
- Memorandum of Law of the US in Support of the Constitutionality of the VARA of 1990 and in Response to Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (13).
Case Notes
Plaintiffs:Marta Ayala & Patricia Rose
Plaintiffs Attorneys: Brooke Oliver & Associates, Brooke Oliver, lead counsel.
Defendants: Jane Yu, Wing Sum Yu, Win Tim Yu, Jian Wen Li, Yi Shi Tam, Sunhee Moon, Yoon Hee Moon, Mike Y. Moon.
Defendants Attorneys: Ilene Hochstein, John Wiley, Siu Li Ma, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Zuzana Szihra, lead counsel, Bowles & Verna, Jason Granskog, lead counsel.
San Francisco muralists sued building sellers, building buyers and a commercial tenant alleging violations of their rights under federal Visual Artists' Rights Act (VARA), negligence and breach of contract for damage alleged to have occurred when the commercial tenant painted over a mural created by the Artists'. Building seller and buyer cross-claimed against their respective real estate brokers. A confidential settlement agreement was reached through mediation.
(Click on a document title to download a .pdf file of the document.)
LILLI ANN MURAL CASE: CAMPUSANO, ET AL. v. ROBERT J. CORT TRUST
Case Notes
Plaintiffs: Jesus Campusano's heirs, Andres Campusano, Sandra Campusano & Elias Rocha
Plaintiffs Attorneys: Brooke Oliver & Associates, Brooke Oliver lead counsel and Mark Talamantes, associate and Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, Robert Borton, lead counsel, and Sonja Banerjee, associate
Defendants: Robert J. Cort Trust
Defendants Attorneys: Owen, Wickersham & Erickson, Lawrence G. Townsend, lead counsel, Preston Gates & Ellis, John L. Boos, lead counsel
The Lilli Ann mural, an outdoor painting in San Francisco was whitewashed by building owners/developers without notice to the artists holding title. Artist and artist's heirs sued, alleging violations of their rights under federal Visual Artists' Rights Act (VARA), with ancillary claims alleging violation of the California Art Preservation Act. After the artists won a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and finally a mandatory injunction. A $200.000.00 settlement in the case was reached.
(Click on a document title to download a .pdf file of the document.)
I. COMPLAINT, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND ANSWER
1. Verified Complaint for TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and other relief. 7/31/98 (15 pages)
2. Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 7/31/98 (2)
3. MPA in support of ex-parte application for TRO and order to show cause re: Preliminary Injunction. 7/31/98 (9)
4. Supplemental Declaration of Nathan Zakheim in Support of Preliminary Injunction. 8/31/98 (3)
II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Do Not Do Or Permit Further Harm
6. Answer of Defendant Robert J. Cort to verified complaint for TRO, Preliminary Injunction And other relief. 8/27/98 (9)
7. ORDER Granting Preliminary Injunction. 9/16/98 (4)
8. San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution abhorring defacement of Lilli Ann and urging building owners to restore it. 10/16/98 (3)
10. Observations on the Lilli Ann mural, J. William Shank, Conservator (Defendant's Expert Witness) 10/19/98
III. MODIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Remove The Whitewash
12. Defendant's MPA in Opposition to Application to Modify Preliminary Injunction. 11/25/98
13. Declaration of Nathan Zakheim in Support of Application to Modify Preliminary Injunction and to Add an Additional Term. 11/16/98 and letter supplement about removeability of mural. 10/29/98 (5)and (4)
15. Transcript of Proceedings: Modification of Preliminary Injunction (p44) and request for briefing on the appropriateness of bond. 12/3/98 (52)
16. ORDER Modifying Preliminary Injunction: REMOVE THE WHITEWASH. 12/3/98
IV. APPROPRIATENESS OF A SECURITY BOND
17. Plaintiff's brief re: Issuance of A Security Bond
18. Defendant's brief re: appropriateness of bond. 12/15/98 (5)
19. ORDER re: Additional Evidence and Briefing from Parties re: public interest and the appropriateness of a bond. 4/21/99 (2)
20. Defendant's MPA re: appropriateness of waiver of the security requirement or nominal security.5/5/99 (11)
21. Plaintiff's MPA in response to brief re: appropriateness of waiver of the security requirements or nominal security. 5/12/99 (11)
22. Arts Commission Resolution re: No Interest In Asserting Title to "Lilli Ann.² 6/7/99 (2)
23. ORDER Regarding Posting of Security Pursuant to FRCP 65(c).7/30/99 (12)
V. SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
25. Settlement and demand Letter to Opposing Counsel prior to Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Laporte. 10/13/99
26. Listing of Evidence Presented to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference.(3)
27. Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. 12/6/99 (8)
28. Stipulation and Order re Dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint and defendant's counterclaim. 12/8/99 (2)
29. Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Defendant's cross claim against city and county of SF and City counterclaim. 12/8/99 (2)
(Click on a document title to download a .pdf file of the document)
1. US District Court Order upholding Cause of Action under the VARA. 12/16/2001 (15)
Dykes on Bikes Gives the Trademark Office a Linguistics Lesson
Reversing its previous decision, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to grant trademark status to 'Dykes on Bikes,' announced lead counsel Brooke Oliver. "Our clients felt quite strongly that the mark should continue to be reserved for non-profit purposes," Oliver said, noting that the group has allowed other non-profit groups across the country to use the name for gay pride events. "No one should be able to profit commercially from years and years of activism.'' Pablo Manga, associate attorney in the firm, explained that "The reversal came after the case was appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which remanded it to the USPTO to reconsider."
The firm did over $50,000 in pro bono legal work on the case, and assembled a landmark pro bono team of intellectual property lawyers, scholars, authors and activists that made this victory possible. The collaboration of our firm, NCLR, Townsend Townsend and Crew, and DLA Piper Rudnick showed how effectively committed lawyers can cooperate toward a common goal. "We are proud of the victory, proud to represent the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent, and very gratified by the cooperation and support of such incredible co-counsel," concluded Oliver.
Key documents associated with the case are available by clicking on these links, including over two dozen expert declarations submitted before the appeal.
Trademark office says "Yes" to "DYKES ON BIKES" (PDF)
Trademark Application (PDF)
USPTO's Initial Refusal (PDF)
Response to USPTO's Initial Refusal (PDF)
USPTO's Second Refusal (PDF)
Brief to the USPTO Requesting Reconsideration (PDF)
View Declarations in Support of Request for Reconsideration here
Reconsideration Request of USPTO's Refusal (PDF)
Request to Remand for Additional Evidence: Parts I (PDF) & II (PDF)
USPTO's Approval for Publication (PDF)
DYKES ON BIKES Description of Services and Timeline (PDF)
