Stephen Cummings v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS [20, 29 , 37 AND DENYING MOTIONS TO EXTEND 55 , 57 AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 16 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Dolbys Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and Cameron Group and Sony Motions to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE. (ECF Nos. 20, 29, 37.) The Court DENIES as moot Motions to Extend. (ECF Nos. 55, 57.) The Court GRANTS the Cameron Group Motion for Attorneys Fees and invites the parties to file its Motion for Attorneys Fees no later than October 14, 2020. The Court will enter Judgment.( SEE FOOTNOTE 1: At the July Hearing, the Court also denied the Motion to deem Cummings a vexatious litigant 17 . (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

STEPHEN CUMMINGS,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

I.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:20-cv-04443-ODW(PVCx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS [20][29][37] AND
DENYING MOTIONS TO EXTEND
[55][57] AND GRANTING MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [16]

INTRODUCTION

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff Stephen Cummings filed the instant suit. On July
13, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on several motions in this matter (“July
Hearing”). Cummings impermissibly called into the telephonic hearing on a cellular
telephone, which resulted in Cummings’s garbled transmission. As the Court had
difficulty hearing Cummings despite specific instructions to appear telephonically
only on a landline and sufficient notice of the hearing, the Court considered the
parties’ arguments presented in the written briefs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.1
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
(Mot. to Dismiss by James Cameron, Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc., Paramount
Home Entertainment, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp., Twentieth Century Fox Film
At the July Hearing, the Court also denied the Motion to deem Cummings a vexatious litigant.
(ECF No. 17.)
1

1

Corp., (collectively, “Cameron Group”) (“Cameron Group Mot.”), ECF No. 20; Mot.

2

to Dismiss by Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (“Dolby”) (“Dolby Mot.”), ECF No. 29; Mot.

3

to Dismiss by Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (“Sony”) (“Sony Mot.”), ECF

4

No. 37.) Consequently, the Court DENIES Cummings’s Motions for Extensions of

5

Time to Serve various Defendants. (ECF Nos. 55, 57.) The Court also addresses the

6

Cameron Group’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Mot. for Attys’ Fees, ECF No. 16.)
II.

7

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8

This lawsuit is Cummings’s third attempt to recover from Defendants

9

Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Paramount Pictures

10

Corp., Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., and

11

James Cameron and first attempt against Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (collectively,

12

“Defendants”) based on allegations that Defendants adapted the 1997 motion picture

13

Titanic from Cummings’s life story. (See Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF

14

No. 1-1.)

15

On May 19, 2017, Cummings first filed this lawsuit in the Middle District of

16

Florida. See Compl.; Cummings v. Cameron, No. 6:17-cv-00908-CEM (M.D. Fla.

17

May 19, 2017) (“Cummings I”). That case was dismissed because Cummings failed

18

to comply with the local rules. Cummings v. Cameron, No. 6:17-cv-1897 ORL41

19

(DCI), 2018 WL 5629931, at *2 n.2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018).

20

Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit at the same venue on November 2, 2017. See

21

Cummings v. Cameron, No. 6:17-CV-1897 ORL41 (DCI) (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018)

22

(“Cummings II”). The case was dismissed with prejudice. Cummings II, No. 6:17-cv-

23

1897-Orl-41DCI, 2018 WL 5629931, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018), appeal

24

dismissed, No. 18-14836-D, 2019 WL 6249386 (11th Cir. June 25, 2019).

25

In the instant matter, all Defendants move to dismiss this case on the basis of

26

res judicata or collateral estoppel. (See Cameron Group Mot., Dolby Mot., Sony

27

Mot.) Additionally, Dolby moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See Dolby

28

2

1

Mot.) Finally, the Court addresses the Cameron Group’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

2

(See Mot. for Atty Fees.)
III.

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

A court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

(“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to

6

support an otherwise cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

7

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). “To survive a motion to dismiss . . . under Rule

8

12(b)(6), a complaint generally must satisfy only the minimal notice pleading

9

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)”—a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v.

10

Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The

11

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

12

level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The “complaint must

13

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

14

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation

15

marks omitted). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic

16

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550

17

U.S. at 555).

18

Whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a “context-specific

19

task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common

20

sense.” Id. at 679. A court is generally limited to the pleadings and must construe all

21

“factual allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as true and . . . in the light most

22

favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir.

23

2001).

24

deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

25

266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

But a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted

26

Where a district court grants a motion to dismiss, it should generally provide

27

leave to amend unless it is clear the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.

28

3

1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d

2

1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
IV.

3

DISCUSSION2

4

Defendants move to dismiss this case on the basis of res judicata or collateral

5

estoppel. (See Cameron Group Mot.; Dolby Mot.; Sony Mot.) Additionally, Dolby

6

moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See Dolby Mot.) Finally, the Court

7

addresses the Cameron Group’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Mot. for Atty Fees.)

8

A.

Failure to State a Claim
The Court addresses Dolby’s motion first.

9

Dolby correctly asserts that

10

Cummings only made two allegations against it in the entirety of his Complaint—first,

11

to assert that Cameron is the owner of Dolby, and second, to allege that all Defendants

12

including Dolby engaged in a conspiracy. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11.) “To establish a common

13

law claim for civil conspiracy, [plaintiff is] required to prove by clear, cogent, and

14

convincing evidence that (1) two or more people combined to accomplish an unlawful

15

purpose, or combined to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means[ ] and (2)

16

the conspirators entered into an agreement to accomplish the conspiracy . . .. Mere

17

suspicion or commonality of interests is insufficient to prove a conspiracy.” Conklin

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cameron Group and Sony request for judicial notice of Cummings’s prior lawsuits. (Reqs. for
Judicial Notice, ECF Nos. 21, 38.) Dolby requests judicial notice of corporate disclosure
documents. (Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 30.) Finally, Cummings requests judicial notice of
various documents as well. (Pl.’s Req. Judicial Notice, ECF No. 27.) “A court may . . . consider
certain materials . . . [including] matters of judicial notice” when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201
(providing that judicial notice may be appropriate where facts are not subject to reasonable dispute).
The Court GRANTS requests by Cameron Group and Sony to judicially notice the order granting
the motion to dismiss in Cummings II, No. 6:17-cv-1897 (M.D. Fla.) The Court also GRANTS the
requests to consider the ownership of Dolby as such information is publicly available. Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. IXIA, 50 F. Supp. 3d 1328, 1349 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (Morrow, J.)
(“Courts can consider securities offerings and corporate disclosure documents that are publicly
available”) (citing Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1064 n.7 (9th
Cir. 2008)). The Court DENIES all other requests as the Court does not consider those materials in
the disposition of the motions to dismiss.
2

4

1

v. Univ. of Washington Med., No. C:18-0090-RSL, 2018 WL 5895352, at *4 (W.D.

2

Wash. Nov. 9, 2018), aff’d, 798 F. App’x 180 (9th Cir. 2020).

3

First, the Court “need not [ ] accept as true allegations that contradict matters

4

properly subject to judicial notice.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979,

5

988 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

The Court took judicial notice of the corporate disclosures demonstrating that

7

Cameron does not own Dolby and thus, the Court does not accept as true Cummings’s

8

allegation that Cameron owns Dolby.

9

Without this assertion Cummings fails to connect Dolby to the conduct of the

10

remaining Defendants and thus, fails to sufficiently allege a claim for conspiracy.

11

Additionally, as discussed in detail below, Cummings’s claims against the remaining

12

Defendants are barred by res judicata. Thus, the Court finds that no additional

13

allegations could cure Cummings’s deficiency or properly raise a claim that Dolby

14

engaged in a conspiracy to use Cummings’s likeness in the film Titanic. Accordingly,

15

the Court DISMISSES without leave to amend claims against Dolby.

16

B.

Res Judicata

17

Next, the Court addresses the Cameron Group Motion and Sony Motion to

18

dismiss Cummings’s complaint based on res judicata. (See Cameron Group Mot.;

19

Sony Mot.) Res judicata bars lawsuits based on “any claims that were raised or could

20

have been raised in a prior action.” Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th

21

Cir. 2002) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Res judicata applies to

22

bar a suit where there is “(1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits;

23

and (3) identity or privity between parties.” Id.

24

1.

Identity of Claims

25

First, to establish identity of claims, the Court considers whether: (1) “the two

26

suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts”; (2) “rights or interests

27

established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of

28

the second action”; (3) “the two suits involve infringement of the same right”; and

5

1

(4) “substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions.” Mpoyo v. Litton

2

Electro–Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, Cummings files an

3

action seeking declaratory relief and damages based on infringement of common law

4

right of publicity and copyright. (See Compl.) First, the instant matter and Cummings

5

II arise out of the same nucleus of facts: In Cummings II, he alleged Defendants used

6

his

7

ideas, . . . art, . . . actions, . .“music/ability vocally,” . . . personality[,] . . . character,

8

[and] . . . interactions with others’ to create Titanic and in connection with the sale of

9

Titanic merchandise.” Cummings II, 2018 WL 5084748, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28,

10

2018), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, 2018 WL

11

5629931 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018). In the instant suit, Cummings alleges that Sony

12

and the Cameron Group “have used Plaintiff’s name/image/likeness/words/

13

photograph/ideas/life history and life story/other originating with ONLY the Plaintiff,

14

to promote themselves, and/or the motion picture ‘Titanic’” (Compl. ¶ 13.) Thus, the

15

first factor weighs in favor of establishing an identity of claims. Next, the second and

16

third factors demonstrate an identity of claims because both the instant matter and

17

Cummings II dealt with claims of rights to publicity and copyright infringement;

18

reevaluating the claims dismissed in Cummings II would prejudice Defendants,

19

forcing them to expend resources litigating previously resolved cases.

20

Cummings II 2018 WL 5084748, at *1 with Compl. ¶¶ 13–15. Finally, as the claims

21

are identical, the evidence required to establish the claims would necessarily be

22

identical. Considering the four factors, the Court finds that the identity of claims

23

element has been met.

“life

story,

studied

him,

and

used

his

‘image, . . . name[,]

Compare

24

2.

Final Judgment on the Merits

25

Second, the prior suits must have reached “a final judgment on the merits.”

26

Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956. “[F]inal judgment on the merits is synonymous with

27

dismissal with prejudice.” Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d

28

683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

6

1

The prior lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

See Cummings II, 2018 WL

2

5629931, at *2 (“The Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) is DISMISSED with

3

prejudice.”) Thus, this factor is also met.

4

3.

5

Third, the parties in the current action must be identical to or in privity with the

6

parties from the prior actions. Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956. In Cummings II, Cummings

7

filed suit against James Cameron, Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc., Sony Pictures

8

Entertainment Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp., Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc.

9

and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, the identical parties raising this defense

10

Identity or Privity Between Parties

in the instant matter. Id. Thus, there is no doubt that this requirement is satisfied.

11

4.

12

Cummings filed an untimely opposition to the three motions to dismiss, which

13

the Court nonetheless accepted. (Opp’n to Mots., ECF No. 60; Min. Order, ECF

14

No. 52.) However, Cummings simply reiterates the standard, “‘Res Judicata’ does

15

NOT APPLY unless the claims have been FULLY LITIGATED”, and adds

16

inflammatory remarks, “Your Honor,-do I have to put the defendants council [sic]

17

through Law School MYSELF?????.......ahem……” (Opp’n to Mots. 3–4.)

18

Cummings’s Opposition

Cummings’s statements are far from clear, yet the Court attempts to discern his

19

arguments.

He seems to argue that the prior judgment was obtained by fraud;

20

however, the District Court in Florida adopted in part the Report and

21

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge who found that Cummings had filed a

22

shotgun pleading. Opp’n to Mots. 5–6; Cummings II, 2018 WL 5084748, at *5,

23

report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, 2018 WL 5629931. The

24

Court finds no evidence of fraud in the prior case and no specific allegations of fraud

25

are asserted. Next, Cummings argues that he included novel common law claims in

26

the instant suit precluding a finding of res judicata; however, each cause of action

27

asserted in the Complaint are premised on his allegations that the Defendants misused

28

his rights to create and profit from the film Titanic. (Opp’n to Mots. 7; see Compl.)

7

1

As all claims arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts and satisfy the

2

remaining factors of the identity of claims prong, the Court finds that any newly

3

asserted claims are equally barred by res judicata.

4

meaningfully oppose the motions.

Thus, Cummings fails to

5

As all three factors of res judicata are satisfied, the Court finds that all claims in

6

this matter are barred. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS motions to dismiss by

7

Cameron Group and Sony. The Court DIMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims in

8

the Complaint against Cameron Group and Sony. Consequently, the Court DENIES

9

Cummings’s motions for an extension of time to serve various Defendants.

10

C.

Attorneys’ Fees

11

Finally, the Court addresses the Cameron Group’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

12

“[T]he court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part

13

of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Supreme Court has suggested several factors the

14

Court can consider in its discretion: “frivolousness, motivation, objective

15

unreasonableness (both in the factual and in the legal components of the case) and the

16

need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and

17

deterrence.” Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 535 (1994). The Supreme Court

18

recently clarified the purpose of the fee award: “When a litigant—whether plaintiff or

19

defendant—is clearly correct, the likelihood that he will recover fees from the

20

opposing (i.e., unreasonable) party gives him an incentive to litigate the case all the

21

way to the end.” Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979, 1986 (2016).

22

As the prevailing parties, Cameron Group are eligible for an award of their

23

attorneys’ fees.

Here, the Court finds that Cummings’s allegations are wildly

24

factually unreasonable as he doesn’t claim to have been on the Titanic but asserts that

25

his experience on yachts and his several love interests inspired the plot and the

26

character Rose. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17.) Furthermore, his claims are plainly barred by res

27

judicata and therefore, legally unreasonable. Although his motivation appears to be

28

sincere as he genuinely believes the film was based on his life, Cummings filed a

8

1

patently frivolous case. The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of awarding

2

attorneys’ fees. Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir.

3

2018) (finding the District Court abused its discretion in failing to consider the

4

unreasonableness of plaintiff’s claim).

5

As this is his third case premised on identical facts and circumstances, the Court

6

finds that an award of attorney’s fees is justified to compensate the Defendants and

7

should deter Cummings. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Attorneys’

8

Fees.
V.

9

CONCLUSION

10

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Dolby’s Motion to

11

Dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and Cameron Group and Sony Motions

12

to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE. (ECF Nos. 20, 29, 37.) The Court DENIES as

13

moot Motions to Extend. (ECF Nos. 55, 57.) The Court GRANTS the Cameron

14

Group Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and invites the parties to file its Motion for

15

Attorneys’ Fees no later than October 14, 2020. The Court will enter Judgment.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED

18
19

September 14, 2020

20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

9