• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 
L
ARRY
M
ONTZ
; D
AENA
S
MOLLER
,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 08-56954v.D.C. No.P
ILGRIM
F
ILMS
& T
ELEVISION
, I
NC
.;2:06-cv-07174-
NBC U
NIVERSAL
, I
NC
.; C
RAIG
FMC-MANP
ILIGIAN
; J
ASON
C
ONRAD
H
AWES
;OPINIONU
NIVERSAL
T
ELEVISION
N
ETWORKS
,
 Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of CaliforniaFlorence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedDecember 16, 2010—Pasadena, CaliforniaFiled May 4, 2011Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Mary M. Schroeder,Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,Sidney R. Thomas, Kim McLane Wardlaw,Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman,Carlos T. Bea, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Schroeder;Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain;Dissent by Judge Gould
5913
 
COUNSEL
Howard B. Miller (argued), Graham B. LippSmith and JosephC. Gjonola, Los Angeles, California, and Martin N.Buchanan, San Diego, California for plaintiffs-appellantsLarry Montz and Daena Smoller.Gail Migdal Title (argued), Joel R. Weiner and Gloria C.Franke, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellees Pil-grim Films & Television, Inc., et al.David Aronoff, Los Angeles, California, for amici curiaeReveille LLC et al.Lee S. Brenner and Allison S. Brehm, Los Angeles, Califor-nia, for amici curiae American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.,et al.Robert H. Rotstein and Andrew Spitser, Los Angeles, Califor-nia, for amicus curiae The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
5916M
ONTZ
v. P
ILGRIM
F
ILMS
 
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:In Hollywood, writers commonly submit copyrightedscripts to producers with the understanding that if the scriptis used, the producer must compensate the writer for the useof the copyrighted material. But what happens when the pro-ducer uses the idea or concept embodied in the script, butdoesn’t pay? The Supreme Court of California, in 1956,answered this question by recognizing an implied contractualright to compensation when a writer submits material to a pro-ducer with the understanding that the writer will be paid if theproducer uses the concept.
 Desny v. Wilder 
, 299 P.2d 257(Cal. 1956).A so-called “
 Desny
claim” has remained viable under Cali-fornia law for over fifty years.
See Gunther-Wahl Produc-tions, Inc. v. Mattel
,
 Inc
, 104 Cal. App. 4th 27 (2002). Thiscourt applied that California law in
Grosso v. Miramax FilmCorp.
, 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004),
amended 
400 F.3d 658(9th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied 
546 U.S. 824 (2005), where weheld that such an implied contractual claim is not preemptedby federal copyright law. We explained that the contractualclaim requires that there be an expectation on both sides thatuse of the idea requires compensation, and that such bilateralunderstanding of payment constitutes an additional elementthat transforms a claim from one asserting a right exclusivelyprotected by federal copyright law, to a contractual claim thatis not preempted by copyright law.
Grosso
has firm roots inour federal law as well as in the California law. Earlier, werecognized that a claim for unjust enrichment is essentiallyequivalent to a claim of copyright infringement and is there-fore preempted.
See Del Madera Props. v. Rhodes & Gard-ner, Inc.
, 820 F.2d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 1987),
overruled onother grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
, 510 U.S. 517(1994). Yet we had also recognized a claim for breach of con-tract that was not preempted where the plaintiff establishes he
5917M
ONTZ
v. P
ILGRIM
F
ILMS
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...