Terri Strickland v. Tyler Perry

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Terri Strickland. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11601

Date Filed: 01/19/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11601
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-03400-TWT
TERRI STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TYLER PERRY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 19, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terri Strickland appeals pro se an order granting judgment on the pleadings
in favor of Tyler Perry and against Strickland’s complaint for copyright

Case: 16-11601

Date Filed: 01/19/2017

Page: 2 of 3

infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 501. The district court ruled that collateral estoppel
barred Strickland’s action against Perry. We affirm.
In 2013, Strickland filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York
that alleged Tyler Perry Studios, LLC, and Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc., had
released a film, Good Works (Lionsgate 2012), that copied protected elements of
Strickland’s copyrighted book, “Bad Apples Can Be Good Fruit” (Infinity Publ’g
2007). The New York court ruled that Perry’s movie did not bear a substantial
similarity to protectable elements in Strickland’s book and entered a judgment on
the pleadings in Perry’s favor. The court also denied Strickland’s motion for relief
from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In 2016, Strickland filed a complaint in the Northern District of Georgia that
Tyler Perry had infringed on Strickland’s copyright by adapting her book into
Good Works. Strickland alleged that she had filed an action previously against
Tyler Perry Studios and Lionsgate. Perry moved for judgment on the pleadings on
the ground that Strickland was collaterally estopped from relitigating the same
issue. The district court granted Perry’s motion.
We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings. Cannon v. City of W. Palm
Beach, 250 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). “Judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.
2

Case: 16-11601

Date Filed: 01/19/2017

Page: 3 of 3

The district court correctly entered judgment in favor of Perry. Collateral
estoppel bars a party from relitigating an issue resolved in an earlier action. “To
successfully invoke collateral estoppel, a party must demonstrate that: (1) the issue
at stake in a pending action is identical to the one involved in the prior litigation;
(2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior suit; (3) the
determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a critical and
necessary part of the judgment in the action; and (4) the party against whom the
earlier decision is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
issue in the earlier proceeding.” Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289,
1293 (11th Cir. 2003). Strickland argues that she was denied a full and fair
opportunity to litigate in the New York court due to a conflict with counsel and her
health issues, but Strickland fails to explain how counsel’s conduct or her illness
tainted the earlier proceeding. Because Strickland litigated previously whether
Perry’s movie infringed on her literary copyright and the issue was decided against
her, she is barred from relitigating that issue. Perry, although he was not a party to
Strickland’s previous action, was entitled to invoke the doctrine of collateral
estoppel against Strickland. See Hart v. Yamaha-Parts Distribs., Inc., 787 F.2d
1468, 1473 (11th Cir. 1986).
We AFFIRM the judgment in Perry’s favor.

3