Jake Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company et al - Document 44

Court Description:

ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank GRANTING Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 29 , pursuant to FRCP 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is entered infavor of Defendants, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety withprejudice. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. (jp) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 14 JAKE MANDEVILLE-ANTHONY, an individual, 15 Plaintiff, 16 17 18 19 v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, WALT DISNEY PICTURES, DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., PIXAR d/b/a PIXAR ANIMATION STUDIOS; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// \\\LA - 022031/000020 - 486896 v1 Case No. CV 11-2137 VBF (JEMx) Complaint Filed: March 14, 2011 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank 1 Defendants The Walt Disney Company’s, Walt Disney Pictures’, Disney 2 Enterprises, Inc.’s and Pixar’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 3 came before the Court on July 25, 2011. After considering the parties’ briefs and the 4 their respective works (incorporated by reference in the Complaint), the Court 5 ORDERS as follows: 6 (1) Plaintiff’s works, Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos and 7 Defendants’ works, CARS, CARS 2, and CARS Toon: Mater’s Tall Tales, are not 8 substantially similarity as a matter of law. Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 9 2d 1124, 1130 (2007); Funky Films v. Time Warner Ent. Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 10 (9th Cir. 2006). Among other things, the protectable elements of the parties’ 11 respective works are dissimilar in plot, sequence of events, pace, themes, dialogue, 12 mood, setting, and characters. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for 13 copyright infringement is DISMISSED with prejudice. 14 (2) Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Contract is 15 DISMISSED with prejudice because it is barred by the applicable two-year statute 16 of limitations. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1); Thompson v. California Brewing 17 Company, 191 Cal. App. 2d 506, 507 (1961). 18 Accordingly, pursuant to FRCP 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is entered in 19 favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety with 20 prejudice. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 7-27-11 Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank United States District Court Judge 25 26 27 28 \\\LA - 022031/000020 - 486896 v1