This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract

Shame on You Productions Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks; Max Handelman; Steven Brill; Brillco Inc., Focus World, A Division of Focus Features LLC; Sidney Kimmel Entertainment LLC; Filmdistrict Pictures LLC; Lakeshore Entertainment Corp.; Lakeshore Entertainment Group LLC; Broken Road Productions Inc.; Todd Garner, and Doe 2 and Does 3 through 10, inclusiv

Published: Oct. 10, 2015 | Result Date: Aug. 14, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:14-cv-03512-MMM-JC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Charles M. Coate

Theresa E. Johnson


Defendant

Devin Stone

Stephen R. Mick

Jacqueline Lechtholz-Zey

David L. Aronoff
(Baker & Hostetler LLP)


Facts

Shame on You Productions Inc. sued producer and actress Elizabeth Banks, her husband Max Handelman, and six production companies, relating to the movie "Walk of Shame."

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed the movie borrowed heavily from a screenplay written by Shame on You Productions' president Dan Rosen entitled "Darci's Walk of Shame." Plaintiff contended that Banks and the other defendants stole the script "Darci's Walk of Shame" for use in their film "Walk of Shame" after Rosen pitched his script to Banks.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for copyright infringement and breach of implied-in-fact contract.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed the works were not substantially similar in copyright protected expression, and were not substantially similar in idea.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the two plots did not have protectable similarities.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 7, 2014.


#95653

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390