Jake Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company et al

Filing 17

ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Pictures.(Singer, David)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

David R. Singer (State Bar No. 204699)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Sanford M. Litvack (State Bar No. 177721)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
WALT DISNEY PICTURES,
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
and PIXAR

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

WESTERN DIVISION

16
17

JAKE MANDEVILLE-ANTHONY,
an individual,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
WALT DISNEY PICTURES,
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
PIXAR d/b/a PIXAR ANIMATION
STUDIOS; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

23
24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

Case No. CV 11-2137 VBF (JEMx)
Complaint Filed: March 14, 2011
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank

1

Defendants The Walt Disney Company (“TWDC”), Walt Disney Pictures,

2

Disney Enterprises, Inc., and Pixar (jointly, “Defendants”), by and through their

3

undersigned counsel, respond to plaintiff Jake Mandeville-Anthony’s (“Plaintiff”)

4

March 14, 2011 Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:

5
6

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1.

Answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

7

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

8

that basis, deny them.

9

2.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

10

3.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

11

4.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

12

5.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

13

6.

Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

14

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

15

that basis, deny them.

16

7.

Answering Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the

17

Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Except as so admitted, Defendants

18

deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 7.

19

8.

Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that this is

20

a suit alleging copyright infringement, brought pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sections 101,

21

et seq., and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright

22

infringement claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1338(a). Except as so

23

admitted, Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 8.

24

9.

Answering Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that venue

25

is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391 and 1400(a) because the

26

claims asserted are alleged to have arisen in this district, and Defendants may be

27

found in this district. Except as so admitted, Defendants deny each and every other

28

allegation contained in Paragraph 9.
\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

2

1

10.

Answering Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

2

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

3

that basis, deny them.

4

11.

Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

5

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

6

that basis, deny them.

7

12.

Answering Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

8

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

9

that basis, deny them.

10

13.

Answering Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, TWDC and its affiliated

11

companies have no record of having received copies of Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars

12

Chaos or Cookie & Co. in 1992, 1994, 1996, or at any other time prior to Plaintiff’s

13

May 2009 complaint letter. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to

14

admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and, on that

15

basis, deny them.

16

14.

Answering Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Jim

17

Morris was employed by Industrial Light and Magic (“ILM”), an operating unit of

18

LucasFilm Ltd. or one of its subsidiaries from 1987 to 1993. Defendants admit that

19

Morris became General Manager/Vice President of ILM in 1991, President of ILM

20

in 1993, and President of Lucas Digital, a subsidiary of LucasFilm Ltd., in 1995.

21

Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the remaining

22

allegations contained in Paragraph 14 and, on that basis, deny them.

23

15.

Answering Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that John

24

Lasseter was one of the directors and writers of CARS. Defendants further admit

25

that Lasseter worked for the Graphics Group in the LucasFilm Computer Division

26

(“LCD”) of LucasFilm Ltd. from 1984 to 1986. Except as so admitted, Defendants

27

deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 15.

28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

3

1

16.

Answering Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Steve

2

Jobs acquired the Graphics Group of the LCD and renamed it Pixar in 1986. Except

3

as so admitted, Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

4

Paragraph 16.

5

17.

Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

6

18.

Answering Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Steve

7

Jobs acquired the Graphics Group of the LCD and renamed it Pixar in 1986.

8

Defendants further admit that Lasseter has worked for Pixar since its formation and

9

is currently the Chief Creative Officer of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios.

10

Except as so admitted, Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

11

Paragraph 18.

12

19.

Answering Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that on

13

January 24, 2006, TWDC and Pixar entered into an agreement under which Pixar

14

would be merged into a wholly-owned subsidiary of TWDC; the merger subsidiary

15

would cease to exist; and Pixar would continue as the surviving corporation.

16

Defendants admit that the transaction was completed on May 5, 2006, and that Pixar

17

is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of TWDC. Except as so admitted, Defendants

18

deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 19.

19
20
21

20.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 20

of the Complaint.
21.

Answering Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that

22

CARS, CARS 2, and Cars TOON: Mater’s Tall Tales are set in a world with no

23

humans, inhabited only by anthropomorphic cars and other vehicles, and that

24

Defendants have made statements to that effect. Defendants deny that Plaintiff’s

25

works incorporate this same element. Defendants lack sufficient information or

26

knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21

27

and, on that basis, deny them.

28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

4

1

22.

Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

2

content of the parties’ respective works speaks for itself. Defendants state that the

3

character Lightning McQueen was named in honor of Glenn McQueen – who was

4

the supervising animator on the CARS motion picture and who died during the

5

motion picture’s production – but was also a nod to Steve McQueen. Defendants

6

admit that the first teaser trailer for CARS 2 was released on November 2, 2010; the

7

first full-length trailer for CARS 2 was released on November 15, 2010; and

8

additional trailers were released on March 7, 2011. Defendants state that the content

9

of the trailers speaks for itself. Defendants deny each and every one of Plaintiff’s

10

legal claims concerning purported copyright infringement and substantial similarity

11

of the parties’ respective works. Defendants lack sufficient information or

12

knowledge to admit or deny the allegations concerning the manner in which

13

Plaintiff’s Cookie & Co. work had been bound and, on that basis, deny them.

14

Defendants deny that the Mater character from CARS was originally conceived as a

15

pristine condition blue wagon. Except as so admitted, Defendants deny each and

16

every other allegation contained in Paragraph 22.

17

23.

Answering Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that

18

CARS was commercially released in theatres in the United States on June 9, 2006

19

and was released on DVD in the United States on November 7, 2006. Defendants

20

admit that Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar are the copyright owners for CARS.

21

Except as so admitted, Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

22

Paragraph 23.

23

24.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the

24

Complaint. Defendants further state that Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar are the

25

copyright owners for CARS 2 and Cars TOON: Mater’s Tall Tales.

26

25.

Answering Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the

27

box office revenues and DVD sales from CARS, and DVD sales from Cars TOON:

28

Mater’s Tall Tales, have generated combined, total revenues in excess of $500
\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

5

1

million. Defendants admit that total retail sales of CARS-related merchandise have

2

been estimated at approximately $5 billion.

3

26.

Answering Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that

4

CARS and Cars TOON: Mater’s Tall Tales continue to generate revenue from

5

various sources including, but not limited to, DVD sales, Blu-ray sales, licensing

6

and merchandising. Except as so admitted, Defendants deny each and every other

7

allegation contained in Paragraph 26.

8
9
10

27.

Answering Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that

CARS 2 is being commercially released in theatres in the United States on June 24,
2011. Except as so admitted, Defendants deny the remaining allegations therein.

11
12

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

14
15
16

28.

Defendants repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Answer

as though fully set forth herein.
29.

Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient

17

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and, on

18

that basis, deny them.

19

30.

Answering Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that

20

Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos and Cookie & Co. are registered with the United

21

States Copyright Office under the registration numbers Pau003517316 and

22

PAu003517273. Defendants deny that they engaged in any copyright infringement

23

or other violations of law whatsoever. Defendants lack sufficient information or

24

knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained therein and, on that

25

basis, deny them.

26

31.

Answering Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendants state that they

27

have no record of having received copies of Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos or

28

Cookie & Co. in 1992, 1994, 1996, or at any other time prior to Plaintiff’s May 2009
\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

6

1

complaint letter. On that basis, Defendants deny each and every allegation

2

contained in Paragraph 31.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

32.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 32

of the Complaint.
33.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 33

of the Complaint.
34.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 34

of the Complaint.
35.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 35

of the Complaint.

11
12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13

BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT

14
15
16

36.

Defendants repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Answer

as though fully set forth herein.
37.

Answering Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendants state that they

17

have no record of having received copies of Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos or

18

Cookie & Co. in 1992, 1994, 1996, or at any other time prior to Plaintiff’s complaint

19

letter. Except as so stated, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation

20

contained in Paragraph 37.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

38.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 38

of the Complaint.
39.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 39

of the Complaint.
40.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 40

of the Complaint.
41.

Defendants admit that Plaintiff has sued Defendants seeking monetary

damages and that Defendants have not compensated Plaintiff for his alleged claims
\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

7

1

because Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief or damages whatsoever. Except as so

2

admitted, Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

3

Paragraph 41.

4
5

42.

Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 42

of the Complaint.

6
7

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

8
9

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10

(Failure to State a Claim)

11

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After

12

the CARS 2 motion picture is released, Defendants intend to bring a motion to

13

dismiss the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure.

15
16

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17

(Statute of Limitations)

18

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of

19

limitations including, but not limited to, 17 U.S.C. Section 507(b) and California

20

Code of Civil Procedure Section 339(1).

21
22

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

(Laches)

24

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.

25
26
27
28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

8

1

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Independent Creation)

3
4

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because each of Defendants’
works identified in the Complaint was independently created by Defendants.

5
6

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Unprotectible Ideas / Lack of Originality / Third-Party Expression)

8

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the allegedly

9

infringed works are unprotectible ideas, scenes-a-fair, and/or expression created by

10

third-parties.

11
12

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Lack of Access)

14

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants did not

15

have access to Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos or Cookie & Co. when they created

16

CARS, CARS 2, and Cars TOON: Mater’s Tall Tales. Also, Plaintiff only registered

17

those works with the Copyright Office after Defendants’ works were created.

18
19

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

(Preemption)

21

Plaintiff’s state law claim is preempted by the Copyright Act.

22
23

EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24

(Statute of Frauds)

25

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statue of frauds.

26
27
28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

9

1

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Release)

3

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he released and

4

waived his claims against Defendants.

5
6

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Invalidity or Unenforceability of Copyright)

8
9

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff’s
copyrights are invalid and/or unenforceable.

10
11

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(Failure to Mitigate)

13

To the extent Plaintiff suffered any damages, which Defendants expressly

14

deny, Plaintiff has failed to take the steps necessary to mitigate the damages

15

purportedly sustained.

16
17
18

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Defendants reserve the right to supplement or amend this answer, including

19

through the addition of further affirmative defenses, based upon the course of

20

discovery and proceedings in this action.

21
22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

23
24

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:

25

1.

Dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice;

26

2.

Costs of suit awarded to Defendants;

27

4.

Attorneys’ fees awarded to Defendants; and

28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

10

1

5.

Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

2
3

Date: May 12, 2011

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

4
5

By:

/s/

6

David R. Singer

7

Attorneys for Defendants
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
WALT DISNEY PICTURES,
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and PIXAR

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

11

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
3

Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury.

4
5
6

Date: May 12, 2011

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

7
8

By:

9

/s/
David R. Singer

10

Attorneys for Defendants
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
WALT DISNEY PICTURES,
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and PIXAR

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

\\\LA - 022031/000020 - 485984 v5

12