Donna West v. Tyler Perry Company, Inc., et al

Filing

Donna West v. Tyler Perry Company, Inc., et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-40873

Document: 00511211810

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/23/2010

REVISED August 23, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

N o . 09-40873

FILED
August 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D O N N A WEST, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t , versu s T Y L E R PERRY, Doing Business as Tyler Perry Company; L IO N S GATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; TYLER PERRY COMPANY, INC., D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:07-CV-200

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-40873

Document: 00511211810 Page: 2 No. 09-40873

Date Filed: 08/23/2010

D o n n a West sued Tyler Perry and his distributor, alleging that his movie c o p ie d elements of a play she had written and performed at a location where Perr y later worked before becoming commercially successful. A jury found in favor o f defendants. On appeal, West claims the district court erred in (1) granting s u m m a r y judgment to defendants on some of her state-law claims; (2) denying h e r motion for a new trial; and (3) awarding costs to defendants for expedited t r ia l transcripts. W e have reviewed the briefs and applicable law, have consulted applicable p o r t io n s of the record, and have heard oral argument. There is no reversible error. T h e district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on W e s t 's state-law claims of unfair competition and conversion, which are pree m p t e d by section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). E.g., Daboub v . Gibbons, 42 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Even if they were not preempted, t h e y would be barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations. T h e district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The d is t r ic t court's memorandum opinion explaining its denial is persuasive in showin g that there was no absence of evidence to support the verdict. There also was no error, and surely no reversible error, in the jury charge. There was no error in the conditional refusal to allow introduction of West's cop y rig h t registration without presentation of the entire registration to the jury. There is no reversible error, and surely no harmful error, occasioned by defense c o u n s e l's statements. Finally, there is no merit to West's assertion that Perry's e x p e r t was not qualified. W e s t 's challenge to the cost of expedited transcripts is similarly unjustifie d . The district court is in the best position to judge the need for such trans c r ip ts . T h e judgment, well grounded in the verdict, is AFFIRMED.

2