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

Filing 45

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: COURT ORDER RE DEFENDANTS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 29 . Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing set for 8/1/2011 at 1:30 PM. (See attached Minute Order for further information). Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. This case is DISMISSED and the matter CLOSED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-2137-VBF(JEMx)

Title:

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

PRESENT:

HONORABLE VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 28, 2011

Joseph Remigio
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

COURT ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [DKT. #29]

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision
without oral argument. The hearing set for August 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
is vacated and the matter taken off calendar.
I.

RULING

The Court has received Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (dkt. #29), Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition
to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (dkt. #40),
Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (dkt. #41), and related documents.
For reasons stated herein, the Court rules as follows:
A.

First Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement. The Court
GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings without leave
to amend, as Defendants have sufficiently shown that the
Parties' respective works are not substantially similar in
their protectable elements as a matter of law.

MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-1-

jre

B.

II.

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Contract. The
Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings without
leave to amend, as Defendants have sufficiently shown that the
statute of limitations has expired on such claim. See Cal. Code
Civ. Pro. § 339(1).

BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiff Jake Mandeville-Anthony filed the
Complaint (dkt. #1) in this Court against Defendants The Walt Disney
Company, Walt Disney Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Pixar d/b/a
Pixer Animation Studios, and Does 1-10. Plaintiff alleges that he is the
copyright owner of two works entitled Cookie & Co. and Cars/AutoExcess/Cars Chaos, and Defendants had access to his works when Defendants
created animated films CARS and CARS 2 and spin-off series Cars Toon.
Plaintiff claims copyright infringement and breach of implied contract
for alleged use of Plaintiff's copyrighted works to create derivative
works. Defendants assert that their works were independently created,
and that the works are not substantially similar.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are
closed — but early enough not to delay trial — a party may move for
judgment on the pleadings." The Motion "challenges the legal sufficiency
of the opposing party's pleadings." Schwarzer, et al., Cal. Practice
Guide: Fed. Civ. P. Before Trial, § 9:316 (The Rutter Group 2011).
"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly
establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact
remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d
1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990).
"Rule 12(b)(6) and (c) are virtually interchangeable. Both permit
challenges directed at the legal sufficiency of the parties' allegations.
The same standard applies to both motions." Schwarzer, et al. § 9:319
(citations omitted). "[J]udgment on the pleadings is appropriate when,
even if all material facts in the pleading under attack are true, the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. § 9:335.
"[A]ll inferences reasonably drawn from these facts must be construed in
favor of the responding party." Id. § 9:336. (citations omitted). "As
with 12(b)(6) motions, if matters outside the pleading are presented to
and not excluded by the court, the motion for judgment on the pleadings
MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-2-

jre

is converted into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion." Id. § 9:339
(citations omitted). However, this only occurs where the Court relies on
the extrinsic evidence in reaching its conclusions. Id.
"Although Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, courts have
discretion to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend (and
frequently do so where the motion is based on a pleading technicality)."
Id. § 9:341.
IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

First Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement

For reasons set forth in the moving papers and stated herein, the
Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to the
first cause of action for copyright infringement. Defendants have
sufficiently shown that the Parties' respective works are not
substantially similar in their protectable elements as a matter of law,
and accordingly, that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently state a claim.
The issue of substantial similarity in a copyright infringement case
may be determined by the court as a matter of law at the pleading stage
by examining and comparing the relevant works. Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co.,
529 F.Supp.2d 1124, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Christianson v. West
Pub. Co., 149 F.2d 202, 203 (9th Cir. 1945)). "[J]udgment on the
pleadings may be granted where the facts asserted by the non-moving party
in its pleadings - including the attached works themselves - and all
reasonable inferences from those facts, show the absence of substantial
similarity." Identity Arts v. Best Buy Ent. Svcs. Inc., 2007 WL 1149155,
*5 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must
allege, inter alia, that "the works at issue are substantially similar in
their protected elements." Zella, 529 F.Supp.2d at 1133. "To assess
substantial similarity as a matter of law, the Court must apply the
objective 'extrinsic test.'" Id., citing Funky Films v. Time Warner Ent.
Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court must determine
whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially
similar. Id. at 1133. The test focuses on "articulable similarities
between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and
sequence of events." Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1077 (internal quotes
omitted).
In this case, Defendants have sufficiently shown that the
protectable elements of such features as plot, sequence of events, pace,
MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-3-

jre

characters, theme, mood, and setting are not substantially similar as a
matter of law.
1.

Plot, Sequence of Events, Pace

Plaintiff states that the plots are substantially similar, as both
plots revolve around anthropomorphic cars, including lead characters
interacting with other cars and finding themselves in a number of
situations that bring about humor and romance, with the backdrop of a
race. Compl. ¶ 22.
Defendants argue that these are "basic plot ideas" that are not
protected. See, e.g., Campbell v. Walt Disney Co., 718 F.Supp.2d 1108,
1112-13 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Defendants argue that regardless, there is no
substantial similarity between the works at all as to such factors as
plot, sequence of events, and pace.
Plaintiff's work Cookie revolves around a single long distance road
trip and the banter between two males, Mike and Brian, including their
encounters with local residents and foreigners. The plot complication is
finishing the race, and their gradual journey takes place over many
months. Early on, it is revealed that all other racers have been
disqualified. In the final scene, they win the race.
Defendants state that Plaintiff's second work Cars Chaos is a
synopsis that proposes general ideas. The outline for a possible
television episode titled "Alpine Antics" describes a car race through
the Swiss Alps, the purpose of which is to win the race. The pace is
rapid, lasting only a few minutes.
Defendants' CARS works involve multiple subplots. The first motion
picture CARS begins and ends with a rally car race, but it is really
about friendship, falling in love, and being part of a community. The
second motion picture CARS 2 involves races in Tokyo, Italy, and England,
but the races and who wins are of minor consequence to the story which
focuses instead on good cars triumphing over evil and a spy operation.
The CARS Toon shorts play on the developed personalities and friendships,
showing that a seemingly unsophisticated character is in fact a hero.
2.

Characters

Plaintiff alleges that there are substantial similarities between
the characters drawn or described in Controlled Chaos and the animated
three-dimensional car characters from Defendants' CARS works. However,
Defendants argue that the idea of animated, anthropomorphic car
MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-4-

jre

characters is unprotectable. See Cory Van Rijn, Inc. v California Raisin
Adv. Bd., 697 F.Supp. 1136 (E.D. Cal. 1987). For decades, cartoons have
featured real-life objects that can talk and have personalities. Also,
characters that flow naturally from a "basic plot idea" are "scenes a
faire" and are unprotectable. Campbell v. Walt Disney Co., 718 F.Supp.2d
1108, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The idea that some of the respective car
characters share attributes that flow from their make and country of
origin also tends against Plaintiff's claim. There is also "no property
interest in stereotyped characters." Midas Prod., Inc. v. Baer, 437
F.Supp. 1388, 1390 (C.D. Cal. 1977). Defendants state that Plaintiff's
car drawings are themselves mere copies of famous cars designed and built
by others, and Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing to
sue for copyright of a third party car design. Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty,
Inc., 719 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1137 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
Defendants argue that the characters are not substantially similar
in their protectable elements. Plaintiff depicts all cars with
headlights as eyes, while Defendants use the entire windshield.
Plaintiff's cars have arms and hands while Defendants' do not.
Plaintiff's cars have hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows, while Defendants' do
not.
3.

Central Themes and Mood

Defendants state that there is not substantial similarity between
the themes explored by Defendants' works and Plaintiff's works and the
mood. Defendants identify Cookie as an upbeat "guy movie" including
slapstick, comedy, sex, and car crashes. Cars Chaos has a light move
including British quips for humor. Defendants' CARS works are comedic,
romantic, sad, and full of suspense.
4.

Settings

Cookie takes place in 1988, and the long-distance rally takes the
characters through various international locations. The Cars Chaos
synopsis discusses the concept of developing stories in various
international settings. CARS takes place in the present day in an
imaginary version of the United States, including a detailed depiction of
the American Southwest. The setting is crucial to the storyline. CARS 2
also displays a fictional twist on real landmarks and buildings adapted
for a world inhabited by anthropomorphic cars. Defendants state that the
settings are an original combination of pure fantasy and detailed
realism, and not substantially similar to Plaintiff's works.

MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-5-

jre

Accordingly, for reasons stated by the moving party, the Court finds
that Defendants have sufficiently shown that the protectable elements of
such features as plot, sequence of events, pace, characters, theme, mood,
and setting are not substantially similar as a matter of law
B.

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Contract

For reasons set forth in the moving papers and stated herein, the
Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to the
second cause of action for breach of implied contract. Defendants have
sufficiently shown that the statute of limitations has expired on such
claim.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff's second cause of action for breach
of implied contract should be dismissed because it is barred by the
statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for breach of implied
contract is two years from the date of the alleged breach. Cal. Code Civ.
Pro. § 339(1). Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges an implied promise by
the defendants to pay for his idea, the limitations period begins to run
on the date the defendants first began to use the plaintiff's idea.
Thompson v. California Brewing Company, 191 Cal.App.2d 506, 507 (1961).
The Ninth Circuit has held that in the context of a motion picture idea,
the claim accrues no later than the date on which the motion picture is
released in theaters. Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 1001 (9th Cir.
2005) (abrogated on other grounds, Taylor v. Sturgel, 533 U.S. 880
(2008)). CARS was released in June 2006, Compl. ¶¶ 23, 40, so the
statute of limitations expired in June 2008, but Plaintiff did not bring
suit until March 2011.
Accordingly, Defendants have sufficiently shown that the claim
time barred as a matter of law, and leave to amend would be futile.
v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (district
may deny leave to amend when any proposed amendment would be futile
because it would require Plaintiff to make allegations inconsistent
prior pleading).
C.

is
Reddy
court
with

Defendants' Objections to and Request to Strike Hunter
Declaration and Portions of Plaintiff's Opposition Brief [Dkt.
#42]

Defendants state, inter alia, that Plaintiff's 36-page Opposition
exceeds the 25-page limit under L.R. 11-6 and this Court's Standing
Order, and as such, pages 26-36 should be stricken, or the Opposition
should be stricken in its entirety. The Court notes that, without the
Court's permission, Plaintiff improperly submitted an Opposition
MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-6-

jre

exceeding the 25-page limit. Despite that defect, the Court read and
considered the Opposition in its entirety, and the Court's conclusion on
this Motion remains the same.
Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in
favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. This case is DISMISSED and
the matter CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 90
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk
-7-

jre