1
2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ESPLANADE’S
OPPOSITION
TO
DISNEY’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Gary E. Gans (Cal. Bar No. 89537)
garygans@quinnemanuel.com
Jeffery D. McFarland (Cal. Bar No. 157628)
jeffmcfarland@quinnemanuel.com
Shahin Rezvani (Cal. Bar No. 199614)
shahinrezvani@quinnemanuel.com
Aaron H. Perahia (Cal. Bar No. 304554)
aaronperahia@quinnemanuel.com
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for Plaintiff Esplanade Productions, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ESPLNDE PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WALT DISNEY PICTURES, a California corporation; ABC, INC., a New York corporation; BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, Inc., a California corporation; DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation; DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC., a California corporation; DISNEY BOOK GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BUENA VISTA BOOKS, INC., a California corporation; DISNEY INTERACTIVE STUDIOS, INC., a California corporation; DISNEY STORE USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DISNEY SHOPPING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CSE NO.: 2:17-cv-02185-MWF-JC
PLAINTIFF ESPLANADE PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Date:
June 26, 2017
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Judge:
Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
Place:
Courtroom 5A
Case 2:17-cv-02185-MWF-JC Document 18 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:115
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 --
ESPLANADE’S
OPPOSITION
TO
DISNEY’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT .................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 5
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................. 5
II.
ESPLANADE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES INFRINGEMENT .................... 5
A.
Esplanade Need Only Give Notice of Substantial Similarity ................. 5
B.
The Court Must Consider the Goldman Zootopia as a Whole, Including the Selection and Arrangement of Even Unprotectable Elements .................................................................................................. 6
C.
Infringement Concerns Copying of Material from Plaintiff’s Work, Not the Portion of Infringement in Defendant’s Work ................ 8
D.
Esplanade Sufficiently Alleges Its Zootopia Is Infringed ....................... 9
1.
Themes ........................................................................................ 10
2.
Settings ........................................................................................ 11
3.
Dialogue ...................................................................................... 12
4.
Characters ................................................................................... 14
(1)
The ensemble of characters. ............................................. 15
(2)
Individual characters. ....................................................... 16
5.
Plot and Sequence of Events ...................................................... 18
6.
Mood and Pace ........................................................................... 20
7.
Artwork ....................................................................................... 21
8.
Title ............................................................................................. 22
9.
Selection, Arrangement, and Combination of Elements ............ 23
III.
ESPLANADE ADEQUATELY ALLEGES STATE LAW CLAIMS ........... 23
IV.
ESPLANADE MAY RECOVER STATUTORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES ...................................................................................... 24
V.
IF NECESSARY, ESPLANADE REQUESTS LEAVE TO AMEND .......... 25
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 25
Case 2:17-cv-02185-MWF-JC Document 18 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:116
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 --
ESPLANADE’S
OPPOSITION
TO
DISNEY’S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
CASES
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................. 7
Basile v. Warner Bros. Entm’t
, 2016 WL 5867432 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) ............................................. 10, 20
Baxter v. MCA, Inc.
, 812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1987) ........................................................................... 13
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................... 5
Benay v. Warner Bros. Ent., Inc.
, 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 23, 24
Berkla v. Corel Corp
., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (E.D. Cal. 1999) ............................................................. 24
Cabell v. Zorro Prods. Inc
., 2017 WL 2335597 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2017) .................................................. 3
Campbell v. Walt Disney Co.
, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .......................................... 8, 10, 16, 20
Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.
, 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................... passim
Chase Riboud v. Dreamworks, Inc.
, 987 F.Supp. 1222 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ................................................................. 14
Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.
, 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 24
Desny v. Wilder
, 46 Cal. 2d 715 (1956) ...................................................................................... 24
Duckhole, Inc. v. NBC Universal Media LLC
, 2013 WL 5797279 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013) .................................................. 16
EKB Textiles, Inc. v. Target Corp.
, 2011 WL 13085924 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2011) .............................................. 22
Erickson v. Pardus
, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) ............................................................................................ 5
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.
, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) .......................................................................................... 6
Fleischer Studios v. Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc.
, 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934) .............................................................................. 21
Case 2:17-cv-02185-MWF-JC Document 18 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:117