IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—E.D. Cal.: Saga over the disputed rights to albums by a Jalisco-based band edges nearer to trial, (Dec 17, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The dispute involves competing claims of authorship between two record labels, a bandleader, and members of the band.

A record label that recorded and distributed four albums by a popular Mexican band would not be entitled to summary judgment on the copyright infringement lawsuit leveled against it by a company that claims to have later acquired the rights to those albums, the federal court for Fresno, California has held. The court, in denying the motion for summary judgment, cleared the way for the dispute over the four albums—along with a companion dispute with another label over three other albums by the same band—to head to a jury trial (Yellowcake, Inc. v. Hyphy Music, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00988-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025)).

The opinion arises out of long-running litigation over the music of Los Originales de San Juan, a Jalisco-born band that has been performing for over three decades. Jesus Chavez, the founder and lead singer for the group, entered into two oral agreements with different record companies for the production of seven of the group’s albums: four to be recorded with Hyphy Music, a California record label, and three others to be recorded with Morena Music, another California label.

But things got complicated several year later when Yellowcake Music Group, a California digital rights management and audio-visual acquisition company, entered the picture. That company, apparently after convincing Chavez that his prior oral agreements were invalid, entered into a written agreement with the bandleader for the rights to all seven albums. Litigation inevitably followed. Yellowstone filed separate lawsuits against Morena and Hyphy (Morena complaint here, Hyphy complaint here) accusing the two labels of continuing to distribute the albums without permission. The two labels, turn, counterclaimed with infringement claims—along with a variety of state law claims—against Yellowstone (Morena counterclaim here, Hyphy counterclaim here).

The lawsuits have already been through a dizzying set of rounds in the courts. In 2021, the district court dismissed the copyright infringement counterclaims that the two labels brought against Yellowcake (Morena opinion here, Hyphy opinion here). In both cases, the court found that in light of the oral nature of their agreement with the bandleader, they could not have been granted exclusive rights over the albums at issue. Nor were there sufficient allegations, the court found, that Chavez recorded the albums on behalf of the labels as a work for hire. Rather, the court found, they could at best only be co-owners of the rights in light of their contributions to the albums.

The two cases then advanced to the summary judgment stage. In June of this year, the court in the Morena case found that Yellowcake was not entitled to summary judgment on its claim of sole ownership of the three Morena albums. To the contrary, the court found, a jury could reasonably find that Morena had joint ownership over the albums in light of its creative contributions to the album in the studio. Moreover, the court found, a jury could also find that Morena had joint ownership of the album in light of its contention that two other bandmembers, themselves potentially co-owners of the rights for their own creative contributions in the studio, later transferred their rights to Morena). Meanwhile, in the Hyphy case, the court in this past August granted summary judgment to Chavez on a breach of oral contract claim that the label brought the bandleader.

Both parties in the Morena case, meanwhile, filed further motions for summary judgment, leading to this opinion.

Standing. The court first refused to grant summary judgment for Hyphy on Yellowcake copyright infringement claim based on standing grounds. Hyphy argued that because Chavez’s two bandmates were co-owners of the work they created together in the studio, Yellowcake could not have obtained the exclusive rights to the albums when it signed the transfer agreement with Chavez. But whether or not the two bandmates shared ownership rights with Chavez was a matter for the jury to decide, the court emphasized—a point that it had already made when the same issue was raised in the Morena case earlier in the year. “Accordingly, a genuine dispute regarding ownership remains for the jury to resolve,” the court found, “and Hyphy’s argument fails.”

Co-ownership. The court also declined to grant summary to Hyphy on the basis of its own creative contribution to the album, separate and apart from the creative contributions by the bandmates. Hyphy contended that it closely collaborated with the band by helping to determine the theme and overall creative direction of each album, selecting the songs to be included in each album, selecting and paying for the recording studio, hiring the sound engineer, and generally overseeing and supervising the recording of the albums. But it was not necessary to decide whether this matter presented a jury question on its own, the court found, since the matter of Yellowcake’s ownership would already have to be decided by the jury in light of the dispute over whether the three bandmates shared ownership. A “robust analysis” of the issue at this stage of the proceeding, the court concluded, was not necessary.

Damages. For the same reason, the court found, it was not necessary to address the question of whether Yellowcake had made an adequate case of damages. Hyphy argued it should prevail on its demand for summary judgment on Yellowcake’s infringement claim for the separate reason that Yellowcake had failed to tender sufficient evidence of its actual damages. But once again, the court found, the question of Yellowcake’s potential copyright infringement was already going to the jury—and thus it was not necessary to analyze the question further at this stage.

Other issues. The court also found rejected summary judgment on other issues presented by Hyphy—once again, for the same reasons. For example, Hyphy argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on Yellowcake’s demand for injunctive relied as well as Hyphy’s own claim that Yellowcake infringed upon its rights in the album artwork. But these issues, too, the court found, also turned on issues that would inevitably be in front of the jury anyway. Similarly, the court found, Hyphy would not be entitled to summary judgment on its claim that Yellowcake engaged in unfair competition by uploading one of the albums to an online record store. This claim, too, involved questions that would have to be decided by a jury.

The Case is No. 1:20-cv-00988-JLT-BAM.

Judge: Thurston, J.

Attorneys: Thomas P. Griffin (Hefner Stark & Marois, LLP) for YellowCake, Inc. John Michael Begakis (Altview Law Group, LLP) for Hyphy Music, Inc.

Companies: YellowCake, Inc.; Hyphy Music, Inc.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews GCNNews