Ricketts v. CBS Corps.

• Decision Date: 18 February 2020
• Docket Number: CV 19-03895 DSF (MRWx)
• Citation: 439 F.Supp.3d 1199
• Parties: Donat RICKETTS, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATIONS, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

439 F.Supp.3d 1199

Donat RICKETTS, Plaintiff,

v.CBS CORPORATIONS, et al. Defendants.

CV 19-03895 DSF (MRWx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed February 18, 2020

Donat Ricketts, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.

Anjani Mandavia, David Loren Burg, Mandavia Ephraim Burg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

Order GRANTING Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 55) and Striking Docket Nos. 77, 87, and 106

Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

Defendants CBS Corporation (erroneously sued as CBS Corporations), CBS Studios Inc. (erroneously sued as CBS Television), Makenna Productions, Inc. (formerly known as Berlanti Television, Inc. and erroneously sued as Berlanti Productions, LLC), Warner Bros. Television (erroneously sued as Warner Brother's Television), The CW Network, LLC (erroneously sued as CW Network), Netflix, Inc. (erroneously sued as Netflix), Rob Hardy, April Blair (erroneously sued as April Blaire), and Spencer Paysinger move for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 56 (Mot.). Plaintiff opposes. Dkt. 87-7 (Opp'n).¹ The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ; Local Rule 7-15.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND²

Plaintiff is an independent filmmaker, producer, and actor. Dkt. 14 (FAC) ¶ 7. In 2013, Plaintiff first introduced the character Blake in a Web Series called "Vignettes" and then further developed his character in "Awkward Moment." Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff also created a Business Plan, which was later revised because of the Black Lives Matter movement. Id. ¶ 32. In July 2013, Plaintiff attended a workshop with Fern Orenstein, the Vice President of Casting for Diversity at CBS Studios. Id. ¶¶ 29, 55. Plaintiff also sent Orenstein, and other employees of Defendants, copies of Vignettes and Awkward Moment. Id. ¶¶ 30, 55. In 2015, Plaintiff released a television script called "Blake's World" that was later turned into a film and released as "Blake's World: Demo Reel." Id. ¶¶ 32, 35, 37. Plaintiff sent postcards promoting Blake to Defendants' employees, and also spoke with Leslie Moonves, then CEO and President of CBS Corporation, over the phone. Id. ¶¶ 39-42, 57, 59, 63, 69. Plaintiff also attended a workshop with "business associates" of Makenna Productions and pitched the idea of "The Fresh Prince as a Football Star." Id. ¶ 43. In July 2016, Plaintiff produced another film starring Blake called "Blake's World: Tunnel Vision." Id. ¶¶ 45-46. Some of Plaintiff's works have been registered with the Copyright Office under registration numbers PA0002155296 and TX0008679244 (the Works). See id. ¶¶ 91, 94, 97, 120.

In Early October 2017, Plaintiff became aware that Defendants were coming out with a TV show called "All American" (the Series). Id. ¶ 90. Plaintiff alleges that the Series infringes some or all of his Works. See id. ¶¶ 93-94, 99-106, 109, 111-116. Based on that alleged infringement, Plaintiff brings claims for 1) constructive/resulting trust, 2) felony copyright infringement, 3) vicarious, civil and common law copyright infringement, 4) unjust enrichment/conversion, 5) discrimination, 6) unfair competition/business practices, and 7) racketeering.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to dismiss a suit "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006). It must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle it to relief. Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 132 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir. 1997). Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is "functionally identical" to a motion to dismiss, the standard for a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, dismissal is appropriate only if the plaintiff fails to assert a cognizable legal theory or to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading sufficient facts to state a claim. Courts will not supply essential elements of a claim that are not initially pled. See Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 88 (9th Cir. 1988). Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on the motion. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n.19. However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered. Id. Allegations by the non-moving party must be accepted as true, and allegations of the moving party that have been denied must be deemed false for the purpose of the motion. Id. at 1550. However, the court is not required to accept the veracity of "legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged," or "merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (reviewing ruling under Rule 12(b)(6) ).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Copyright Preemption

Defendants contend that each of Plaintiff's causes of action is "dependent on a finding of copyright infringement." Mot. at 9. However, Defendants explicitly argue only that the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action are preempted by the Copyright Act. Id. at 28-30.

The Copyright Act preempts all claims based on any "legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... and come within the subject matter of copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). In other words, claims are preempted where "(1) the work at issue falls within the scope of copyright subject matter, and (2) the law at issue grants rights equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the scope of copyright." Ryan v. Editions Ltd. W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2015).

There is no dispute that the Works fall within the scope of copyright subject matter and were in fact registered (or attempted to be registered) with the Copyright Office. Therefore, the only question is whether Plaintiff's claims pleaded "rights equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the scope of copyright."

1. Vicarious, Civil, and Common Law Copyright Infringement (Third Cause of Action)

Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action alleges that "all defendants contributed to the modification and commercial feasibility of Tunnel Vision " and "either knowingly or unwittingly infringed plaintiff's exclusive rights in artistic taste, creative control, budgetary controls, style of presentation, and script dynamics to create All American." FAC ¶ 138.

As Defendants note, the Copyright Act explicitly extinguished, on or after January 1, 1978, any rights "under the common law or statutes of any State." 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Plaintiff does not dispute this. Plaintiff's legal arguments about access, Opp'n at 41-42, have no bearing on whether this claim is preempted and is further not relevant for purposes of this motion because Defendants have conceded access. Therefore, Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action, to the extent it purports to be based on anything other than the Copyright Act is preempted by the Copyright Act. However, the Court acknowledges that a claim for vicarious infringement based on a federal direct infringement claim is not preempted. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (A person "infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it").

2. Unjust Enrichment/Conversion (Fourth Cause of Action)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "participated in acts of conversion ... regarding the ownership of plaintiff's work" and failed to "get authorization from plaintiff to use Tunnel Vision registered under Copyright Registration No. PA0002155296 and Copyright Registration No. TX0008679244." FAC ¶¶ 151, 153. Plaintiff concedes that the Fourth Cause of Action is based on allegations that Defendants intended to "exclude plaintiff as the right owner of the expression in question." Opp'n at 42. Such a claim depends on Defendants' alleged use of Plaintiff's work without permission, is therefore equivalent to a right under Section 106, and is preempted.³ See Edwards v. Cinelou Films, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01014-ODW (AGRx), 2016 WL 9686986, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Edwards v. Cinelou Films, 696 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2017) (claim that defendants stole "general storyline from [plaintiff's] works and turn[ed] it into a movie ... is simply a copyright infringement claim couched as a state law claim for conversion, and is therefore preempted.").

Plaintiff relies on Smith v. Weeknd, No. CV 19-2507 PA (MRWx), 2019 WL 6998666 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019) to establish that his claims are not preempted. Opp'n at 39. In Smith, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants created, published, and distributed a song that allegedly infringed a copyright for plaintiffs' song. Id. at *1. The plaintiffs did not dispute that their claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment were preempted. Id. at *6. Instead, the plaintiffs argued that they asserted these claims in the alternative, to the extent the defendants successfully defended the copyright infringement claims by establishing that defendants obtained a license to use plaintiffs' song without plaintiffs' knowledge. Id. The district court found that such allegations were not included in the complaint and dismissed the constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend. Id. However, after...