Moore v. Lightstorm Entm't.
| Decision Date | 08 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RWT-11-3644 |
| Parties | BRYANT MOORE, Plaintiff, v. LIGHTSTORM ENTERTAINMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
"Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain, The Complete Works of Mark Twain: Mark Twain's Notebook 381 (Albert Bigelow Paine ed., 1935). Mark Twain's frustration notwithstanding, Congress evinced a clear intent that federal copyright laws preempt equivalent state law claims. See 17 U.S.C. § 301 (2006). On March 18, 2013, following a hearing, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Bryant Moore's breach of implied contract claims on preemption grounds. ECF No. 59. Moore now moves for reconsideration of that decision, arguing that the Court erred in holding that those claims are preempted. Mot. Recons., Apr. 15, 2013, ECF No. 73. Moore's Motion for Reconsideration suffers from several fatal procedural defects, and even if it did not, he has failed to satisfy the requirements for motions under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For those reasons, Moore's Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
Moore is a "passionate science fiction writer" residing in Maryland. Second Am. Compl. at 1, Aug. 29, 2013, ECF No.45. He wrote several original works, including two screenplays atissue here: Aquatica and Descendants: The Pollination (Pollination). Id. Moore wrote Aquatica in 1992 and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1994; he wrote Pollination in 2002 and registered it in 2003. Id. He later revised Aquatica and re-registered the screenplay in 2006 under the title Aquapocalypse. Mot. Dismiss at 12, Jun. 29, 2012, ECF No. 23.1
Defendants are individuals and entities involved in writing, producing, and distributing the film Avatar. Second Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 4-6. James Cameron is a writer, producer, and director who Defendants assert wrote Avatar. Id. at ¶ 4. Cameron is also the principal owner of Lightstorm Entertainment, the California corporation that produced the film. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a film studio incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Id. at ¶ 6. Fox produced and distributed Avatar. Id.
Fox released Avatar in movie theaters worldwide in December of 2009. Id. at ¶ 8. It is unclear precisely when the script was written, but Moore alleges that Defendants pre-registered the screenplay that would become Avatar in November of 2006. Id. at ¶ 34.2 Upon release, the film received substantial critical acclaim; it was nominated for nine and won three Academy Awards as well as a Golden Globe Award. Id. at ¶ 9. The film also generated a video game, and several sequel films are apparently planned. Id. As of August of 2012, Avatar remains the highest-grossing film of all time with reported box office earnings surpassing $2.7 billion. Id.
Moore alleges that Defendants had access to both scripts well before they pre-registered Avatar in 2006. Id. at ¶ 34. According to Moore's Second Amended Complaint, he firstsubmitted the screenplay for Aquatica to Lightstorm in 1994 and then again in 1995, always through some intermediary or intermediaries. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. Moore does not allege that these intermediaries were authorized to receive scripts on behalf of Defendants, nor does he describe industry conventions for submitting scripts in detail.
Eight years later, in or around January of 2003, Moore obtained contact information from the Director's Guild of America for Cameron's business manager at Sher, Sherr, Gelb, and Company ("SSG"). Id. at ¶ 25. Moore alleges that he sent a script to SSG, and on referral sent a copy to Tom Cohen, Lightstorm's Creative Director, on April 7, 2003. Id. at ¶ 26-27. Moore alleges that Lightstorm subsequently informed him that it was not interested in producing Aquatica, but does not indicate how or when Defendants allegedly contacted him. Id. at ¶ 28.
In July of 2003, Moore sent the screenplay for Pollination to Lightstorm through counsel, allegedly "with permission" from Lightstorm. Id. at ¶ 29. Moore asserts that he made a series of follow-up phone calls to Lightstorm throughout 2003 and sent mail in February 2004. Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. On April 29, 2005, Plaintiff registered Pollination-themed artwork with the U.S. Copyright Office and, on some unstated date, submitted the art to a producer who allegedly had "a nexus" with Cameron. Id. at ¶ 32.3 On May 3, 2006, Moore registered a revised copy of Pollination with the Writers Guild of America. Id. at ¶ 33.
Moore filed his first complaint on December 19, 2011. Compl., ECF No. 1. He amended his complaint twice, first on June 11, 2012 [Am. Compl., ECF No. 21] and then on August 29, 2012 [Second Am. Compl.]. He claims that in the course of writing, producing, and distributingAvatar, Defendants (1) breached an implied contract as to Pollination, (2) breached an implied contract as to Aquatica, (3) violated the Federal Copyright Act as to Pollination, and (4) violated the Federal Copyright Act as to Aquatica. Id. at 2. Moore sought declaratory relief as well as a total of $2.5 billion in actual and punitive damages, subject to an accounting. Id. at 15-16.
Defendants moved to dismiss Moore's complaint for failure to state a claim on June 29, 2012. Mot. Dismiss. The Court held a motions hearing on March 18, 2013 and granted the Motion to Dismiss as to Moore's breach of implied contract claims and denied the motion as to the Federal Copyright Act claims. ECF No. 59.4
Moore filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the breach of implied contract claims on April 15, 2013. Mot. Recons. Defendants filed their opposition on May 2, 2013 [Defs.' Opp'n, May 2, 2013, ECF No 84] and Moore replied on May 28, 2013 [Pl.'s Reply, May 28, 2013, ECF No. 89].
Moore's Motion for Reconsideration suffers from fatal procedural and substantive defects. First, the motion is time-barred because the underlying Order is not susceptible to reconsideration under either Rule 60(b) or 59(e). Second, even if Moore's motion were properly raised under either Rule 60(b) or 59(e), he has failed to satisfy the requirements for motions under those Rules.
The Local Rules for the District of Maryland state: "Except as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52, 59, or 60, any motion to reconsider any order issued by the Court shall be filedwith the Clerk not later than fourteen (14) days after entry of the order." D. Md. Ct. Local R. 105.10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c) states that a motion made under the auspices of Rule 60(b) must be made "within a reasonable time," and Rule 59(e) states that "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)-(c).
Here, the Court issued its Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants' Motion to dismiss on March 18, 2013. ECF No. 59. Moore filed his Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2013, twenty-eight days after the Order issued. Mot. Recons.; see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). His motion, then, is timely only if properly brought under Rules 60 or 59.
Orders are only susceptible to reconsideration under Rules 60(b) and 59(e) if they constitute "final judgments." See Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) ( ). Judgments are generally only final where they adjudicate and resolve all claims as to the parties. See Millville Quarry Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 217 F.3d 839, *3 (4th Cir. 2000) (unpublished).5 An order dismissing fewer than all claims is not a final judgment for which a Rule 60(b) or 59(e) motion is appropriate, but rather an interlocutory motion that may be contested under Rule 54(b). See Quigley v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 685, 699 (D. Md. 2012) (Chasanow, C.J.) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54) ("[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims orthe rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action . . . and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities"); Crouch v. City of Hyattsville, Md., DKC 09-2544, 2010 WL 4868100, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 23, 2010) ().
This Court's March 18, 2013 Order dismissing some, but not all, of Moore's claims is not a final judgment. Just as in Crouch, where the court ruled that an order dismissing fewer than all of plaintiffs' claims against the defendants was interlocutory and not a final judgment, here several of Moore's claims against Defendants survived the Motion to Dismiss. See Crouch, 2010 WL 4868100 at *2. Therefore, as a matter of law, neither a 60(b) nor a 59(e) motion is available to Moore.6
Neither Rule 60(b) nor 59(e) is appropriate for reconsideration of already-argued issues. See Eberhardt v. Integrated Design and Constr., Inc., 167 F.3d 861, 872 (4th Cir. 1999) (); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th...
To continue reading
Request your trial