Frye v. Lagorstrum et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 45 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Lagerstrom's motion to dismiss and his request for sanctions are denied. The parties should inform the Court within ten days if they wish a referral to a Magistrate Judge for settlement. This Memorandum and Order resolves Docket Number 45. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/23/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (spo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
JOSEPH FRYE,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

- against -

15 Civ. 5348 (NRB)

BENJAMIN F. LAGERSTROM, a.k.a
BENJAMIN IRISH, and DIANACOLLV, INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------X
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In

this

copyright

infringement

and

breach

of

contract

action, plaintiff Joseph Frye alleges that defendants wrongfully
incorporated footage from his short film into videos that they
published

on

the

Internet.

Defendant

Benjamin

Lagerstrom,

proceeding pro se, moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

12(b)(6)

and

for

against the plaintiff and his attorney under Rule 11.

sanctions
For the

following reasons, the motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), alleges the
following facts.

Plaintiff Joseph Frye writes screenplays and

produces, directs, and edits videos and films, sometimes using

the

alias

“Little

Lion,

Tiny

Tiger.”

Compl.

¶¶

5–6.

The

individual defendant Benjamin F. Lagerstrom (the “defendant”)
owns

and

operates

the

corporate

defendant

(“Dianacollv”), a New York corporation.
In

September

of

2014,

Frye

Dianacollv,

Inc.

Id. ¶ 10.

and

Lagerstrom

reached

an

agreement to produce a 13-page script entitled “Homeless: A Love
Story,” which Frye had written and registered with the Writers
Guild of America, into a short film of the same name.
22, 36, 40.

Id. ¶¶

On September 12, 2014, the parties executed a “Crew

Agreement” under which Dianacollv would provide video production
services in the form of equipment, cast, and crew.
40; see id. Ex. B (“Crew Agreement”).1
would

provide,

participation

inter

credit

to

alia,
the

meals,
crew,

Id. ¶ 24,

In exchange, plaintiff
a

and

makeup
provide

completed motion picture within 60 days.

artist,
a

DVD

of

and
the

Crew Agreement at 1.

The production work was to be done “on speculation,” meaning
that defendants would not be paid but were working “under the
idea

that

future

paid

work

will

result

from

the

help

in

promotion of the project that comes with sample/demonstration
production, otherwise known as a ‘pilot[.]’”

Id.

The Crew

Agreement further provided that “all footage and material being
part of this agreement is the property of the Producer” and that

1

Although the Complaint alleges the Crew Agreement was executed on
September 12, 2014, the signatures appear to be dated September 18.
Crew
Agreement at 2. This discrepancy is immaterial.

2

Dianacollv “will not distribute or display such footage in any
way

other

work.”

than

Id.

as

an

example/demonstration

of

the

company’s

Plaintiff signed the agreement as the “Producer,”2

and Lagerstrom signed it as the “Crew Chief.”

Compl. ¶ 27; Crew

Agreement at 2.

During negotiations, plaintiff also agreed to

give

credits

Lagerstrom

as

“Director

“Executive Producer” of the film.
Principal

shooting

of

of

and

Compl. ¶ 23.

“Homeless”

completed in September of 2014.

Photography”

commenced

Id. ¶¶ 41–42.

and

was

In October of

2014, as Frye was editing the footage to produce a 12–15 minute
short

film,

the

relationship

between

Frye

and

Lagerstrom

deteriorated after the two disagreed about how to best promote
the completed film.

See id. ¶¶ 42–46.

On October 12, 2014, defendant Lagerstrom, under the alias
“Jerry Seinfeld,” published a video entitled “Pilot for LL/TT
Showtime Networks” on the website YouTube.

Id. ¶ 49.

The

approximately six minute video was composed entirely of footage
from the “Homeless” shoot, including an “important part” of the
completed film that Lagerstrom had edited differently.
49,

51,

52.

“Director.”

In

this

Id. ¶ 50.

video,

Lagerstrom

labeled

Id. ¶¶

himself

as

Plaintiff discovered the video and, by

email dated November 14, 2015, insisted Lagerstrom remove it.

2

Elsewhere, the Crew Agreement identifies
Lion-Tiny Tiger.” Crew Agreement at 1.

3

the

“Producer”

as

“Little

Id. ¶ 52.
“Order”
accusing

Lagerstrom refused, responding with a letter styled

to

plaintiff

plaintiff

interested

in

and

of

the

staff

falsely

“Homeless”

at

Showtime

representing
project,3

Networks

that

accusing

Inc.,

Showtime
plaintiff

was
of

certain “criminal activity,” and asserting defendants’ right to
use the footage.

Id. ¶ 53; see id. Ex. G.

Defendant sent

additional letters and emails to Showtime staff leveling similar
accusations.

Id. ¶ 54.

Meanwhile,
editing

of

in

December

“Homeless,”

registration.

of

2014,

plaintiff

having

applied

completed
for

his

copyright

He received certificates of registration for the

text of “Homeless” (effective December 26, 2014) and for the
motion picture (effective January 20, 2015).

Id. ¶ 15; see id.

Ex. A.
Between April and June of 2015, defendant published three
additional videos on the websites Vimeo and YouTube.
62.

Id. ¶¶ 60–

These videos -- entitled “Margarita’s Millions,” “Jack, La

Historia

de

Jack

Documental

de

Hernandez”

--

Veneno,”

Benjamin
each

and

“La

Irish

incorporated

3

con

Historia
Ric

footage

de

Flair
from

Jack
y

Veneno.

Relampago

“Homeless”

to

Plaintiff asserts that, at the time, he was employed by Showtime
Networks as an associate producer for Interactive Television.
Compl. ¶ 7.
In September of 2014, he informed Showtime about the production of “Homeless”
to fulfill a “right of first refusal” obligation that was a condition of his
employment, and he told defendants about this requirement.
Id. ¶¶ 32–33.
However, plaintiff did not write, produce, or direct “Homeless” as part of
any agreement with Showtime. Id. ¶ 34.

4

create a polemic about the entertainment industry.

Id.

The

videos accused plaintiff of conspiring with Showtime in order to
harm Lagerstrom.
On

June

Id.

22,

2015,

plaintiff,

defendant a cease and desist letter.

through

counsel,

Id. ¶ 63.

sent

Defendant

responded by writing: “Your client is going to jail.... give me
a break.”
video

on

Id. ¶ 64.
YouTube

On June 28, 2015, defendant published a

entitled

“Margarita’s

Millions

Teaser”

that

used footage from “Homeless” to create another polemic about the
entertainment
misconduct.

industry
Id. ¶ 68.

and

accuse

plaintiff

and

Showtime

of

Plaintiff submitted copyright notices to

YouTube and Vemeo, id. ¶¶ 65, 67, 70, some of which Lagerstrom
opposed, id. ¶ 69.

As of the filing of the Complaint, some of

the allegedly infringing videos remained available on YouTube.
Id. ¶ 73.
B. Procedural History
On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed his Complaint in this
Court, alleging (1) copyright infringement and (2) breach of
contract.4

Defendant Lagerstrom, proceeding pro se, filed four

separate responses to the complaint: a “memorandum of law in
support of motion to dismiss,” an “answer, affirmative defenses,
4

Plaintiff’s Complaint also contains “causes of action” for (3)
“injunction” under 17 U.S.C. § 502, (4) “statutory damages” under 17 U.S.C. §
504, and (5) “seizure and impounding” under 17 U.S.C. § 503.
These claims
are not stand-alone causes of action but requests for relief under the
Copyright Act.
We therefore regard them as part of the copyright
infringement claim advanced in Count One.

5

and counterclaims,” a “motion and/or petition for declaratory
judgment,”

and

“proposed

counterclaims.”

amended

we

defenses,

and

Separately, he made requests for sanctions and

to submit additional evidence.
2015,

answers,

struck

defendant’s

By letter dated September 24,
responses

to

the

complaint

and

granted him leave to file a revised, single document to serve as
his

operative

litigation.

motion
ECF

No.

or
43.

pleading

at

Defendant’s

this

stage

“Operative

of

the

Motion

to

Dismiss the Complaint and Request for Sanctions” and associated
memorandum, ECF No. 45 (“Mem.”), filed October 2, 2015, is that
motion,

which

we

address

here.

Plaintiff

responded

by

memorandum dated November 5, 2015, ECF No. 48 (“Opp’n”), and
defendant replied on December 3, 2015, ECF No. 52 (“Reply”).
Finally, despite our warnings to Mr. Lagerstrom that he could
not represent a corporation in court, the corporate defendant
Dianacollv remains unrepresented and has defaulted.5

ECF No. 50.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
On

a

motion

to

dismiss

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual
allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences

5

On December 18, 2015, we denied plaintiff’s motion for a final default
judgment against Dianacollv without prejudice to its renewal, given the
pending claims against Mr. Lagerstrom. ECF No. 60.

6

in the plaintiff’s favor.

ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund,

Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007).

However, “[t]hreadbare

recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere
conclusory statements . . . are not entitled to the assumption
of truth.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).

In

order to withstand a challenge under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”
544, 510 (2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court may

consider exhibits to the complaint and documents incorporated by
reference into the complaint.

Weinstein Co. v. Smokewood Entm’t

Grp., LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2d 332, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Defendant Lagerstrom is proceeding pro se.

“It is well

established that the submissions of a pro se litigant must be
construed

liberally

and

arguments

that

suggest.”

they

interpreted

to

Triestman

raise
v.

the
Fed.

strongest
Bureau

of

Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted; emphasis removed).

Yet “pro se status ‘does not

exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.’”

Boddie v. New York State Div. of Parole,

285 F. Supp. 2d 421, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Traguth v.
Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
B. Analysis
1. Copyright Infringement

7

Copyright owners possess the exclusive rights to reproduce,
perform publicly, display publicly, prepare derivative works of,
and distribute copies of their copyrighted works.

17 U.S.C. §

106; see Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d
Cir. 2010).
“‘two

To establish a claim of copyright infringement,

elements

must

be

proven:

(1)

ownership

of

a

valid

copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work
that are original.’”

Arista Records, 604 F.3d at 117 (quoting

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991)).

The

presentation

of

a

certificate

of

copyright

registration provides prima facie evidence of both the validity
of the copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), and the originality of the
work, Boisson v. Banian, Ltd, 273 F.3d 262, 268 (2d Cir. 2001).
The copying of original elements of the work can be established
through either direct or indirect evidence.

Boisson, 273 F.3d

at 267.
Here, plaintiff adequately alleges copyright infringement.
As exhibits to the Complaint, he submits copyright registration
certificates
entitling

for

him

original work.

to

the
a

text

and

motion

presumption

of

a

Compl. Ex. A, at 1–4.

picture
valid

of

“Homeless,”

copyright

for

an

He further alleges that

defendant incorporated video shot in connection with the project
into five videos that defendant published on the Internet.

8

He

provides

the

titles,

dates

of

publication,

and

Internet

addresses of the allegedly infringing videos.
Lagerstrom does not dispute that he created and published
the

videos,

filming

of

composed

at

“Homeless,”

least

in

obviating

material was actually copied.

part
any

of

footage

question

from

that

the

original

Instead, he contends that his

conduct did not constitute copyright infringement because (1)
the Crew Agreement contains a transfer or assignment of the
right to use the footage, Reply 3–5;6 (2) plaintiff’s copyrights
are “fraudulent” because the work was “plagiarized,” Reply 3, 6;
and (3) his uses of the footage are protected by the First
Amendment, Reply 4, 10, 14.
None

of

these

arguments

is

advanced

factual or legal basis to be plausible.

with

a

sufficient

Even if they were, such

affirmative defenses would rely on facts outside the complaint
and

therefore

context.

would

not

be

appropriate

to

address

in

this

See Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, No. 07

Civ. 9931(WHP), 2009 WL 3364036, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2009)
(“While a complaint can be dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion raising an affirmative
6

As noted, the Crew Agreement states just the opposite, that “all
footage and material being part of this agreement is the property of the
Producer” and that defendants “will not distribute or display such footage in
any way other than as an example/demonstration” of their work.
Crew
Agreement at 1.
We take defendant’s argument to be that his videos are
merely “demonstrations” of his work.
Plaintiff has adequately alleged,
however, that given the custom and practice in the motion picture industry,
none of defendants’ videos is correctly viewed as an “example/demonstration”
in the sense of a “teaser, trailer or reel sample.” Compl. ¶¶ 26, 51.

9

defense if the defense appears on the face of the complaint, the
complaint itself must establish the facts necessary to sustain
defendant’s defense.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and
citations omitted)); see also Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d
295, 308 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Affirmative defenses” that “require[]
consideration of facts outside the complaint” are “inappropriate
to resolve on a motion to dismiss.”).
2. Breach of Contract
Plaintiff also adequately alleges breach of contract.

The

elements of a cause of action for breach of contract under New
York law7 are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance
of the contract by one party; (3) breach by the other party; and
(4) damages suffered as a result of the breach.

First Investors

Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 162, 168 (2d Cir.
1998).
binding

Here, plaintiff claims the Crew Agreement constituted a
contract;

that

plaintiff

had

fully

performed

the

contract through October of 2014; that defendant breached the
contract, both by his unauthorized use of the footage and by
falsely claiming that he was the Director of the project; and
that plaintiff was damaged because his own plans for promoting
and releasing “Homeless” were frustrated.

7

The parties fail to address what law governs their contract. Based on
the Complaint and the briefing on the motion to dismiss, it appears that Frye
and Lagerstrom are residents of New York, that the Crew Agreement was
negotiated and executed in New York, and that “Homeless” was filmed in New
York. Therefore, we presume New York law applies.

10

Generously construed, defendant’s papers attack the breach
of contract claim by suggesting (1) that the Crew Agreement is
invalid because the “fictitious company Little Lion Tiny Tiger”
was listed as a party to the agreement, Reply 6; and (2) that he
did not profit from his use of the footage, Mem. 7; Reply 4.
Even if true, these contentions are not relevant to whether the
Complaint states a legal claim upon which relief can be granted.
They therefore offer no basis to dismiss the complaint.
3. Defendant’s Further Arguments
Throughout

his

Memorandum

the

Court,

submissions

to

plaintiff’s

counsel,

and

Reply,

defendant

Showtime,

and

and

asserts

others

in

that

have

his

other

plaintiff,

engaged

in

a

conspiracy against him, defrauded him, and violated his civil
rights.

These claims are alleged without a basis in fact or

law, and moreover are wholly irrelevant to the instant motion to
dismiss.

We need not address them further.

C. Sanctions
Having
infringement

concluded
and

that

breach

of

plaintiff’s
contract

claims

survive

a

for
Rule

copyright
12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss, we perceive no basis to impose sanctions
under Rule 11.

Therefore, defendant’s request for sanctions is

denied.
We appreciate that the relationship between plaintiff and
defendant has become acrimonious, and that each feels he was

11

wronged by the other's conduct relating to the editing,
and promotion of "Homeless."
to

repair

or

resolve

this

However,

the Court's

rela t 1onship,

but

to

to

act1on,
whether

thoughtfully

given

the1r

a

settlement

cont1nued

creative

litigation.

pursuing the

consider

of

settlement

this
If

the merits
and

financial

route,

parties

are

1 ega 1

We urge the

and value

of

this

interests,

and

case would be more

the

role is not

evaluate

cla1ms properly advanced under the Federal Rules.
parties

release,

both

sensible

than

interested

the Court would refer this

in

case

to a Magistrate Judge to assist :n that endeavor.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,
dismiss and h1s

request

for

Defendant Lagerstrom's mot1on to

sanctions are denied.

The parties

should inform the Court within ten days if they wish a referral
to a Magistrate Judge for settlement.

This Memorandum and Order

resolves Docket Number 45.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
May 23, 2016

L~-~

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

Copies of the foregoing Memorandum and Order have been mailed on
this date to the following:
Attorney for Plaintiff

Danny Jiminian, Esq.
Jim1n1an Law PLLC
65 Payson Avenue, Suite 3
New York, NY 10034

Defendant (pro se)

Benjamin F Lagerstrom
529 W. 29th Street PHD
New York, NY 10001

13