IN RE Bradley Weston TAGGART, Debtor,
Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of Estate of Stuart Brown; Terry W. Emmert; Keith Jehnke; Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC, Appellants,
v.
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellee.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellant,
v.
Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of Estate of Stuart Brown; Terry W. Emmert; Keith Jehnke; Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC, Appellees.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellant,
v.
Terry W. Emmert; Keith Jehnke; Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC; Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of Estate of Stuart Brown, Appellees.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Stuart Brown, Appellant,
v.
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellee.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
Terry W. Emmert; Keith Jehnke; Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC, Appellants,
v.
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellee.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of Estate of Stuart Brown, Appellant,
v.
Bradley Weston Taggart, Appellee.
In re Bradley Weston Taggart, Debtor,
pursues the cause on behalf of [the party in interest].” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163, 110 S.Ct. 1717 (emphasis added). Whatever PETA did or did not do for Naruto (it only made representations to this court regarding what it obtained), PETA made sure to protect itself and with the Joint Motion sought to manipulate this court to avoid further negative precedent contrary to its institutional objectives. PETA cleverly argues that, because Naruto is not a party to the settlement and Defendants have maintained that PETA does not have next-friend standing, Naruto should not be bound by judgments entered because of PETA’s actions. But, clever arguments hardly conceal what is really occurring and the flip by PETA is quite surprising. One day, PETA maintains it will advance Naruto’s interests, the next it maintains that Naruto cannot be bound by PETA’s actions. It is clear: PETA’s real motivation in this case was to advance its own interests, not Naruto’s. PETA began this case purportedly seeking not only an injunction, but also a judgment “[d]eclaring Naruto to be the author and copyright owner of the Monkey Selfies with all attendant rights and privileges under law” and disgorgement. Compl. at 9–10. After oral argument, none of those objectives are, apparently, worth pursuing. Rather, when it came down to a possible negative, precedential ruling from the panel, PETA quickly sought to protect the institution, not the claimed real party in interest. PETA used Naruto as a “pawn to be manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case.” Lenhard, 443 U.S. at 1312, 100 S.Ct. 3 (Rehnquist, J., writing for the full Supreme Court).
Unfortunately, PETA’s actions could be the new normal under today’s holding.
