Maldonado v. Valsyn, S.A.

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants seek review of the September 23, 2009 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting appel-lees’ motion for summary judgment on all federal law claims and dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Appellants are salsa musicians who allege they properly rescinded their recording contracts with appellees in 2004, and that the subsequent exploitation of their works constitutes copyright infringement. The district court found appellants did not have the right to rescind the contracts at issue, and it is that ruling that appellants primarily attack on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. The district court properly found the equitable remedy of rescission was unavailable to plaintiffs. Under New York law, the “rescission of a contract is an extraordinary remedy.” Nolan v. Sam Fox Publ’g. Co., 499 F.2d 1394, 1397 (2d Cir.1974). Where there is an adequate remedy at law, i.e., money damages, then a party is not entitled to the equitable remedy of rescission. Rudman v. Cowles Commc’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 280 N.E.2d 867 (1972) (rescission “invoked only when there is lacking [a] complete and adequate remedy at law ánd where the status quo may be substantially restored”); see also New Paradigm Software Corp. v. New Era of Networks, Inc., 107 F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Vene gas-Hernandez v. Asociacion de Compositores v. Editores de Musica Latino Americana, 424 F.3d 50, 56-57 (1st Cir.2005) (applying New York law). Here, the record does not support appellant’s argument that they cannot be fully compensated with an award of money damages. We have examined the remainder of appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.