Facts

Herbert Hudson founded the Southern California-based soul food restaurant, Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles, in 1975. Hudson, Paul Goldsby and Kennedy Goldsby began developing an idea for a television series or movie based on the restaurant. In 2004, they talked about possibly making a television show called "Roscoe's Show," which would be a comedy highlighting the restaurant, its memorable employees, and interactions among the unique people who work and eat there. As a result, Goldsby began making a script for the show and all three began to talk to industry insiders about the possibility of a show. Subsequently, Hudson, Paul, Kennedy, and Goodness Films LLC filed suit against Miguel A. Nunez Jr., Edwin Weinberger and TV One LLC in relation to the show.

TVOne was granted motion for summary judgment on the copyright claims and obtained dismissal on all state law claims on early motions to dismiss. The remaining claims were only against Nunez and Weinberger.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that in 2005, they approached Nunez, an actor, about playing the role of a character on the show and he introduced them to writer-producer Weinberger. Plaintiffs contended Nunez had access to the show's materials and that Weinberger attended some of the casting sessions for the show and had access to materials as well.

Plaintiffs claimed that in 2011, they asked Nunez to talk to TV One as an ideal target for premiering the show and also negotiated with Weinberger regarding his involvement in the show. They alleged that they had an agreement with Weinberger that required him to present the show with Nunez to TV One. Plaintiffs alleged defendants engaged in a conspiracy to plagiarize the materials for the television series, which plaintiffs pitched under the title "Belle's" to TV One. Plaintiffs claimed that TV One agreed to develop and air the show, which aired in February 2013.

In particular, plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied in fact contract, and interference with prospective business advantage. Plaintiffs contended that there were undeniable similarities between their show and "Belle's."

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the works were not substantially similar enough in order to warrant a copyright infringement claim. Defendants argued that Nunez owed no duty to plaintiffs because he was ever authorized to alter plaintiffs' legal relationship with TV One and did not control plaintiffs. Defendants contended Nunez never served as plaintiff's agent and that Weinberger had no knowledge of plaintiff's discussions with Nunez about the show.

Further, defendants argued that plaintiffs "blurted out their idea for Roscoe's show for the purpose of entering into a business relationship with Weinberger" and thus, he could not be liable for breach of implied contract. Defendants claimed that plaintiffs never actually offered to sell the show to Weinberger or Nunez, and that Weinberger created "Belle's" independently. Last, defendants argued that plaintiff did not have any existing relationship with actors, networks or show runners, and even if they did, they could not prove defendants knew about these relationships.

Result

The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to the copyright claims, but denied Weinberger and Nunez's motions for summary judgment as to the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contact and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.