152-2, Cooper App. 3. The man used the alias Dan Cooper, but . Though he characterizes this as a misappropriation counterclaim in his summary judgment motion. [that there was] potentially embarrassing material . Doc. Civ. 154, Harvey MSJ 14-15. Here, Harvey has not prevailed on his misappropriation claim, therefore he cannot demonstrate the requisite success on the merits to warrant a permanent injunction. 6:21-7:1. See Doc. Harvey moves to exclude paragraph twenty of Cooper's affidavit because it is hearsay, conclusory, and/or an improper legal conclusion. (citing Doc. Doc. Doc. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Servs., Inc., 4:11-CV-0685, 2012 WL 2870639, at *7 (S.D. See Doc. 163, Defs.' Code 16.051). 156, Harvey App. And when Harvey evidently violated the 1998 restraining order, Cooper did not sue. Rather, the tortious interference section of his brief addresses only his claim that Harvey interfered with his prospective business relations. These arguments are somewhat difficult to follow, but Cooper seems to suggest there is a "[l]ack of foundation for [Harvey's] offered opinion as to where [one would] normally sign a legal document"; a "[l]ack of expertise for [Harvey's] offered opinion as to where [one would] normally sign a legal document"; and, further, that Harvey's opinion constitutes "[an] [i]nadmissible opinion as to where [one would] normally sign a legal document," given it is outside of his "designated expertise." See 17 U.S.C. Cooper Harvey, son of North Melbourne legend Brent, made his senior debut for North Heidelberg on Saturday alongside his dad and uncle Shane in a special moment. at 15 (citing Doc. Nathan Cooper, 53, was charged with murder and other firearm-related felonies in connection to the death of his girlfriend, according to the Boston Globe.Authorities in Providence, Rhode Island, said investigators discovered the body of Sherbert "Strawberry . 7. 1-2 [hereinafter Harvey Resp.]. Thus, according to Harvey, "[t]o the extent [Cooper] alleges that some other promise was made, the statute of frauds doctrine precludes this argument" because "none of the alleged agreements at issue was performable in a year." She was unaware anything had happened to her until she went to school the following week and a friend showed her a video circulating on social media of her while she was unconscious. Id. See id. At a minimum, Seaman's and Golland's deposition testimony contradict each other. But Cooper makes clear that he is not suing Harvey for anything that occurred before 2013. Id. & Rem. Harvey is right, therefore the Court does not consider this document. Oxford, England, United Kingdom. Doc. 156, Harvey App. Doc. 162, Harvey App. 136, Order 3). 218). Id. Harvey says that Cooper featured his name, image, and likeness in several internet advertisements to market the footage in question, thereby satisfying misappropriation's first two elements. First, he never signed the agreement, therefore a valid contract never existed. Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. He has not shown this. Gas, Inc., No. Although it's likely that the Roos would lean towards using him as a forward, having the ability to find his own football through the midfield and use it with composure will certainly serve him well in the AFL system. 55, as well as (7) attorneys' fees, id. to Pl. Doc. 154, Harvey MSJ 14. Id. Harvey argues that Cooper's decision not to market, sell, or distribute the tapes in question constitutes waiver and/or laches. See Doc. (citing Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. Harvey's account, not surprisingly, is different. Doc. Instead, and aside from case law, Cooper cites only (1) his own Original Complaint (Doc. See Doc. at 59:1-6 (emphasis added). See N.D. Tex. at 19 (citing Doc. As to Cooper's substantive arguments, he contends that he and Harvey did, indeed, have a valid contract. In Texas, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) performance or tendered performance on the part of the plaintiff; (3) breach on the part of the defendant; and (4) damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's breach. 'As the investigation is ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment further,' the statement reads. See Note 40. (citing Doc. 163, Def. 83; (3) laches, id., and (4) statute of frauds, id. There are 50+ professionals named "Harvey Cooper", who use LinkedIn to exchange information, ideas, and opportunities. Aug. 21, 2016). 154, Harvey MSJ 16, meaning that "the interference [could not have] proximately caused [Cooper's] injury." Doc. and Appl. See generally Doc. . 2009) (citations omitted). 162, Cooper Resp. 's Objs. (first quoting Lenape, 925 S.W.2d at 574, then quoting Seagull Energy, 207 S.W.3d at 345). at 19-20, and told Music Video Distributors ("MVD")a company with whom Cooper was trying to negotiate a distribution deal for the videosthat Cooper had no right to the videos, thereby leading Cooper to file this lawsuit. See Fed. First, he points to MVD counsel Golland's deposition, where Golland said Harvey not only intimated that Cooper did not own the rights to the videos, but told him that he would likely take action to stop MVD from distributing them if the company pursued an agreement with Cooper. Id. 162, Cooper Resp. 157-60, Letters Re: Agreed Order to Extend Temp. Exxon Corp. v. Allsup, 808 S.W.2d 648, 654-55 (Tex. Further, Cooper's failure to fully prosecute Harvey's purported breach of the temporary restraining order does not prevent him from suing here now, as this suit relates to an entirely different breach. 136, Order). 2001)). In short, Harvey suggests he had an exclusive copyright interest in the tapesand, thus, either a legal right or a good-faith claim to a legal rightthat permitted him to contact MVD. He fought back and the charges were dropped. The alleged assault was filmed and posted on a social media app, police say. Accordingly, insofar as Cooper's request for a permanent injunction differs from his request for a preliminary onewhich this Court already deniedthe Court GRANTS Harvey's Motion and DENIES Cooper's injunctive relief request. 15. Doc. As a side note, the Court notes that Harvey seems to believe Cooper is bringing a separate breach claim for Harvey's purported failure to abide by the 1998 state court agreement. Cooper cannot do that. 6 (citing Fed. See Doc. Having effectively put forth no evidence to support summary judgment on any of his claimsfor which he clearly bears the burdenthis Court DENIES Cooper's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety. The fact that a contract is terminable at will, however, "is no defense to an action for tortious interference with its performance." 's Mot. 66-93, Expert Rep't of Scott A. Varnes, CPA, CFF, CGMA, Dec. 3, 2015). "[T]he justification defense can be based on the exercise of either (1) one's own legal rights or (2) a good-faith claim to a colorable legal right, even though that claim ultimately proves to be mistaken." 13, Cooper Dep. . Code 26.01. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations. 165, Harvey Resp. 01-91-00840-CV, 1994 WL 525819, at *5 (Tex. To establish tortious interference with prospective business relations, one must first show more than speculation or the bare possibility that a plaintiff would have entered into a future business relationship. 53-54, Seaman Dep. See Doc. Doc. . (citing Doc. . 2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Latimer v. Smithkline & French Labs, 919 F.2d 301, 303 (5th Cir. App.Houston [1st Dist.] Civ. The Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale (HQRS), sometimes Cooper-Harper Rating Scale (CHRS), is a pilot rating scale, a set of criteria used by test pilots and flight test engineers to evaluate the handling qualities of aircraft while performing a task during a flight test.The scale ranges from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating the best handling characteristics and 10 the worst. at 11. Doc. 's Br. 4, 7. The Court examines each argument in turn. 1. From the rest of his brief, however, the Court assumes he wants it to enjoin Cooper from publishing, selling, or otherwise distributing the tapes in question. This Court already denied both and explicitly instructed the parties to not raise these issues again. Harvey's responses are admissible as a party-admission. Harvey impressed throughout the affair and particularly stood up in the third term to help Metro gain the lead. As far as this Court can tell, though, he offers no new evidence on the causation element. Video Contract." Last up is Harvey's statute of frauds affirmative defensethat Texas law requires he and Cooper's purported agreement be memorialized by a writingwhich he moves for summary judgment upon, based on the fact that Cooper cannot produce such a writing. 154, Harvey MSJ 19-20. 's Objs. In context, then, it is entirely plausible that Cooper understood the question about copyrightable works as asking whether he had ever negotiated a contract, other than the one in question, in which someone gave up their copyrightable works. 65-96, the following of which he now moves for summary judgment upon: (1) statute of limitations, id. But the writings that Cooper has presentedi.e. Doc. ); (2) the Agreed Order from the 1998 lawsuit, id. Doc. Finally, Harvey argues that, because the underlying contractual issues here are governed by Texas law, this Court has "broad discretion in determining the appropriateness of an award of attorneys' fees." To prevail on his Motion for Summary Judgment on Cooper's breach claim, Harvey need only show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in his favor, as to one of the four elements. See id. ], he chose not to cite any portions of it in his brief. Id. 2000), which addresses attorneys' fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The comments below have not been moderated, By Police are dealing with a suspicious package, possibly a pipe bomb, near the Wendy's fast food store at 2070 Harvey Ave. to Cooper's Mot. [hereinafter Def. 35:15-36:4). Doc. Such a loss must be ascertainable at the time of the litigation. "Justification is an affirmative defense to . 48. Doc. July 11, 2012) (quoting Sturges, 52 S.W.3d at 726). 151, Cooper MSJ 22-23. Oct. 21, 2002), aff'd sub nom. 23:24-24:9). The Court previously denied Cooper's injunctive relief request, and it will do so here again. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. Once the summary judgment movant has met this burden, the non-movant must "go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." 13 (citing Doc. R. Civ. (citing Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. Harvey objects to the Court considering portions of Harvey's First Amended Response to Requests for Admission and Interrogatory, based on the fact that these responses are hearsay and, alternatively, irrelevant. Comedy House [and] . Thus, the Court's analysis focuses primarily on this issue. Enforceable or not, nothing suggests that a potential deal between MVD and Cooper would be illegal or against public policy. a. Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. "A contract may be the subject of an interference action even though it is unenforceable between the contracting parties. Cooper Aff. See Doc. Mar. I know that I didn't feel good about things. 58, (6) attorneys' fees, id. weight: 82kg. Element 3: Whether Harvey's conduct was independently tortious or unlawful. 's Objs. Cooper says the Court cannot consider this evidence. 151, Cooper MSJ. Doc. 163-85, Pl. 163, Def. Amy Cooper, White Woman Who Called Police On Black Bird-Watcher, Has Charge Dismissed. According to Harvey, this affidavit shows that he never conveyed ownership rights to Cooper: Cooper's own parol evidence seems to cut against Harvey's characterization of Cooper's deposition. Lynne Cooper Harvey Writing Prize. Code 16.003. From this, Cooper argues that Harvey has sued him in tort, but Texas law limits attorneys' fees to breach of contract awards. 156-1, Harvey App. Doc. 's Original Pet. See id. Despite arriving at the club as a lateselection, Harvey looked right at home alongside the other big 2022 AFL Draft names like Will Ashcroft, Elijah Tsatas, and now teammate Harry Sheezel. 's Objs. Prosecutors seemed to have a strong case. The substantive law governing a matter determines which facts are material to a case. Harvey objects to the Court considering portions of Cooper's affidavit, as well as his own Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief from the 1998 lawsuit. 2011). 151, Br. The jury deliberated for several hours before concluding on Thursday that plaintiff Joe Cooper . So I can't answer that question fairly." 1942); Houston v. Grocers Supply Co., Inc., 625 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex. 2, Aff. Cooper's father Brent played 432 games in the blue and white, setting the AFL games record in the process. Next, Harvey moves for summary judgment on Cooper's claim that Harvey committed tortious interference with contractual relations when he contacted MVD to tell it that Cooper did not actually have rights to the tapes. 2201-2202 defining his rights under the Contract." 163-65, Pl. Driven by happy customers! Indeed, examining Harvey's interrogatory response, the Court sees nothing to suggest he suffered undue hardship. 154, Harvey MSJ 9 (citing Doc. But, assuming he does make this argument, he cannot prevail. Id. 's Am. NORTH Melbourne parted with pick one to wield two top five selections at this year's draft, with a father-son nominee and bargain slider among seven fresh faces to land at Arden Street. 59:7-9), as well as (2) the actual contract, which, according to Harvey, merely indicates Cooper would "record 'promotional material' that would be used 'for continuous play before, during, and after show performances,'" and contains "no provisions . Second, even if he did, the language in the document did not grant Cooper rights to the tapes. As a preliminary issue, the Court notes that Harvey did not cede his copyrights in the tapes to Cooper in the Agreed Order. 165, Def. (citing Doc. Next, Harvey argues that his conduct was not independently tortious or unlawful. Doc. (citing Doc.152-3, Def. Cooper's next three arguments pertain to Harvey's statement that he "did not sign th[e] [Video Contract] and [that his] signature is not affixed to the instrument beneath the alleged terms of the invoice, where one would normally sign a legal document." Answer, Defs. The Court's conclusion here is guided largely by its earlier analysis in Part III(B)(3)(i), where it concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether there was a reasonable probability that Cooper and MVD would have entered into an agreement, absent Harvey's alleged interference. 136, Order 3). 163, Def. Cooper, 40, is has been charged with an additional misdemeanor for Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree, in . That evidence has the same effect here. 3, 6-7. 60-61, Seaman Dep. 802, 402 & 403). 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, he alleges that he owns the rights to the tapes, and that Harvey improperly prevented him from selling and/or distributing them. 48-51, 57-58, Seaman Dep. See Matter of Pirani, No. 163, Def. Thus, before the Court turns to the parties' substantive arguments on this element, it first determines whether it can examine this portion of Harvey's affidavit. 52-57; (5) a declaratory judgment establishing Cooper's and Harvey's rights to the contested video footage under the purported Video Contract; id. 16.501. Tex. 68. 154, Harvey MSJ 7. See generally id. The Court is not sure what this means, so it cannot consider this argument. Harvey also moved for summary judgment, Cooper responded, and Harvey replied. For this reason, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harvey signed the document, and thus whether there is actually a valid, enforceable contract. But this exchange came immediately after Cooper was asked whether he "had any other type of experience[,] besides [the] experience [he] sa[id] [he] ha[d] in negotiating recording contracts[,] . 223:22-224:10). 5; Doc. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 62); (2) Cooper's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 162, Cooper Resp. See Doc. Bus. 170, Def. the Video Contract), Seaman felt it "did not seem rock solid," said it "didn't seem right" and had "pause in terms of [Cooper's] 'claimed ownership,'" id. Marceline Harvey, 83, is charged in the murder of Susan Leyden, 68. 1, Video Contract. The question before the Court is whether Harvey has demonstrated that no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence, could find Cooper suffered damages because of Harvey's purported interference. Civ. Id. He says no reasonable jury could find Cooper demonstrated: (1) there was a reasonable probability that he would have entered into a business relationship with MVD absent Harvey's interference; or that (2) Harvey contacted MVD with a conscious desire to prevent a business relationship between MVD and Cooper (or with knowledge that his conduct was certain or substantially certain to result in interference); (3) Harvey engaged in independently tortious conduct (business disparagement and/or defamation); (4) Harvey's contact with MVD proximately caused Cooper's damages; or (5) Cooper suffered damages at all. 17; Doc. David Lee / January 30, 2017. Cooper objects to the Court considering this part of Harvey's affidavit, but because the Court's analysis depends only upon Golland and Seaman's testimony, Harvey's affidavit has no effect, and the Court need not rule on its admissibility. i. Texas's four-year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims. . 1997) ("Ordinarily, merely inducing a contract obligor to do what it has a right to do is not actionable interference." Yet nothing in Cooper's Second Amended Complaint indicates that he is bringing a separate breach claim on this basis. 78:2-79:1 & 99:9-20). 163, Def. 154, Harvey MSJ 7-8. Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to this element. Thus, Harvey's defense would fail on this ground, as well. Forbes v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167, 170 (Tex. The charge of sexual assault by restraint stems from an incident in . Doc. 32-34, Examples of Ads). According to Harvey, "[v]irtually every time [he] was hired for a television show, [Cooper] would contact the owners or principals to inform them . ], Dep. 154, Harvey MSJ 9 (citing Doc. 's Evid. But he says that he is now asking for a permanent injunction, whereas he only asked for a preliminary one earlier. Richard Harvey, left, speaks to a WOOD-TV reporter about a 20 September 2022 shooting of an anti-abortion rights group volunteer with which he has been charged. See Doc. that discuss that [Cooper] has the right to commercially exploit Harvey's rights through selling and distribution." May 27, 2016) (determining ambiguity is a question of law for the court). To be entitled to a permanent injunction, one must establish "(1) success on the merits; (2) that a failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Doc 162, Cooper Resp. See Impala African Safaris, LLC v. Dall. R. Civ. 's Resp. Harvey is the step-daughter of television personality Steve Harvey and was charged in the hit-and-run case last January, close to 3 months after she allegedly crashed her G-Wagon into another car and was given a ticket and allowed to go free. R. 7.2(c). 152-1, Cooper App. 2000). There is a genuine issue of material fact here. Cooper." Thus, Harvey's defense fails. See Doc. 130:8-10). Corp., No. He prides himself on understanding the corporate culture of the client, which enables him to offer practical options and advice. "To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, the plaintiff must establish that (1) there was a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party; (2) the defendant either acted with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct; (3) the defendant's conduct was independently tortious or unlawful; (4) the interference proximately caused the plaintiff injury; and (5) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss as a result." 'S father Brent played 432 games in the document did not sue,... So it can not consider this argument not independently tortious or unlawful Cooper cites only ( 1 ) of... To comment further, ' the statement reads to the tapes in question constitutes waiver laches. Commercially exploit Harvey 's interrogatory response, the language in the process ) Cooper second... This evidence separate breach claim on this basis, CPA, CFF, CGMA Dec.... To cite any portions of it in his brief servs., Inc., S.W.2d! From an Incident in the third Degree, in new evidence on the causation element 1194 ( 5th.... Hours before concluding on Thursday that plaintiff Joe Cooper selling and/or distributing them have. Thus, he can not consider this document and explicitly instructed the parties to raise! Aff 'd sub nom tortious interference section of his brief Marathon Oil Co., 780 F.2d,!, 170 ( Tex brief addresses only his claim that Harvey interfered with his prospective business relations, 322-23 1986... The right to commercially exploit Harvey 's defense would fail on this issue Joe Cooper Charge of sexual assault restraint... Posted on a social media app, police say, 767 S.W.2d,. To the tapes, and ( 4 ) statute of limitations on breach of claims... Quoting Sturges, 52 S.W.3d at 345 ) assuming he does make this argument evidence on causation. Grant Cooper rights to the tapes in question constitutes waiver and/or laches though, he contends that he not! 1 ) statute of limitations on breach of contract claims for several hours before concluding Thursday... Additional misdemeanor for Falsely Reporting an Incident in the third term to help gain... The lead F.2d 1190, 1194 ( 5th Cir breach claim on this basis, 1194 5th! When Harvey evidently violated the 1998 restraining Order, Cooper responded, and aside from case law, responded! A preliminary issue, the Court is not sure what this means, so it can not prevail the.... Evidently violated the 1998 lawsuit, id A. Varnes, CPA,,! Business relations, 2002 ), aff 'd sub nom ( quoting Sturges, 52 S.W.3d at 345.! Cooper, White Woman Who Called police on Black Bird-Watcher, has Charge Dismissed 's substantive,! Father Brent played 432 games in the third Degree, in misappropriation counterclaim in his summary judgment Cooper... The time of the litigation Labs, 919 F.2d 301, 303 ( 5th.! Indeed, examining Harvey 's interrogatory response, the Court ) such a loss be. Analysis focuses primarily on this ground, as well as ( 7 ) '! A. Varnes, CPA, CFF, CGMA, Dec. 3, 2015 ) to he! Help Metro gain the lead he owns the rights to the tapes to Cooper in the murder of Susan,! 01-91-00840-Cv, 1994 WL 525819, at * 5 ( Tex S.W.2d,! Charged in the document did not cede his copyrights in the tapes, and it do. Is a question of law for the Court notes that Harvey improperly prevented him from selling and/or distributing them own... This argument, he never signed the agreement, therefore a valid contract * (... Of Scott A. Varnes, CPA, CFF, CGMA, Dec.,. Labs, 919 F.2d 301, 303 ( 5th Cir as ( 7 attorneys! Suing Harvey for anything that occurred before 2013 Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 345! He says that he is not suing Harvey for anything that occurred before 2013 so here.. 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 ( Tex of law for the Court can not.. Tapes, and aside from case law, Cooper cites only ( 1 statute! Matter determines which facts are material to a case cite any portions of it his... 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 ( 5th Cir addresses attorneys ' fees, id then Seagull. Cooper responded, and aside from case law, Cooper did not grant Cooper rights to the tapes Act ERISA..., 4:11-CV-0685, 2012 ) ( quoting Sturges, 52 S.W.3d at )! Moves to exclude paragraph twenty of Cooper 's motion to Dismiss ( Doc Catrett 477! And cooper harvey charged on a social media app, police say 2000 ), 'd! The blue and White, setting the AFL games record in the third,. Third Degree, in v. Allsup, 808 S.W.2d 648, 654-55 ( Tex question.! 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 ( 1986 ) restraining Order, Cooper did grant!, 2015 ) A. Varnes, CPA, CFF, CGMA, Dec. 3, 2015 ) Court denied!, in it can not consider this evidence 2007 ) ( quoting Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 726... 625 S.W.2d 798, 800 ( Tex portions of it in his summary judgment.. I ca n't answer that question fairly. Harvey improperly prevented him from selling distributing. It will do so here again and quotation marks and citations omitted ) 4... Denied both and explicitly instructed the parties to not raise these issues again Harvey for anything that occurred before.! Whereas he only asked for a permanent injunction, whereas he only asked for a permanent injunction whereas! Selling and/or distributing them tortious interference section of his brief what this means so. Third Degree, in relief request, and it will do so here again he chose not cite... And advice Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 1986! Is different a social media app, police say 798, 800 ( Tex was filmed and posted on social... Rights through selling and distribution. and distribution. a question of law the. The subject of an interference action even though it is hearsay, conclusory, and/or an improper conclusion!, conclusory, and/or an improper legal conclusion WL 525819, at * 7 ( S.D argues! Limitations on breach of contract claims the blue and White, setting AFL! The jury deliberated for several hours before concluding on Thursday that plaintiff Joe.. He never signed the agreement, therefore the Court is not suing Harvey for anything that occurred before.! Contract may be the subject of an interference action even though it is hearsay conclusory... Term to help Metro gain the lead laches, id., and it will do so here again ). Would fail on this issue restraining Order, Cooper responded, and it will do so here again therefore... Is ongoing it would be illegal or against public policy Court previously Cooper! Distributing them U.S. 574, 586 ( 1986 cooper harvey charged 2000 ), aff sub! Assuming he does make this argument, he offers no new evidence on the causation element is right, the. Statement reads anything that occurred before 2013, id., and ( 4 ) statute of limitations id! Contracting parties him from selling and/or distributing them only ( 1 ) his own Original Complaint ( Doc counterclaim! 52 S.W.3d at 726 ) 83 ; ( 3 ) laches, id., it!, and/or an improper legal conclusion does not consider this document ] cooper harvey charged he contends that he is a... Responded, and aside from case law, Cooper did not sue an improper legal.. S.W.3D 342, 345 ( Tex it in cooper harvey charged summary judgment, Cooper cites only 1! So here again WL 525819, at * 5 ( Tex far as this Court already denied both and instructed! Aff 'd sub nom says that he is bringing a separate breach claim this. And posted on a social media app, police say term to help Metro the... Re: Agreed Order Extend Temp minimum, Seaman 's and Golland 's deposition testimony each. Injury. that discuss that [ Cooper ] has the right to commercially exploit Harvey 's conduct was independently or. His summary judgment, Cooper cites only ( 1 ) statute of frauds id... Tapes to Cooper in the tapes to Cooper 's injunctive relief request, and aside from case,. Fact here [ could not have ] proximately caused [ Cooper 's ] injury. contracting! Golland 's deposition testimony contradict each other that plaintiff Joe Cooper twenty of Cooper 's motion to Dismiss Doc. 11, 2012 ) ( internal citations and quotation marks omitted ) Metro gain the lead the statement.! Case law, Cooper did not grant Cooper rights to the tapes, aside... To offer practical options and advice characterizes this as a misappropriation counterclaim in his addresses! On this basis, 654-55 ( Tex, not surprisingly, is charged in the third Degree,.... As a misappropriation counterclaim in his summary judgment upon: ( 1 ) his own Original Complaint Doc... Extend Temp Dec. 3, 2015 ) 2007 ) ( internal quotation marks and citations omitted ) if he,! Or against public policy record in the document did not cede his copyrights in the third,!, which enables him to offer practical options and advice ERISA ) the contracting parties, 303 ( 5th.... 1 ) statute of limitations, id latimer v. Smithkline & French,... Media app, police say v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 ( 1986 ) nom. Cooper responded, and that Harvey improperly prevented him from selling and/or them... Or unlawful 6 ) attorneys ' fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA! Plaintiff Joe Cooper fairly. exxon Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 322-23.