Heather Hughes et al v. Jonah Hirsch et al, No. 2:2013cv02173 - Document 62 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiffs First, Second, and Third causes of action are DISMISSED, with prejudice, at Plaintiffs request. Each party shall bear its own costs. (lc). Modified on 9/18/2014. (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Heather Hughes et al v. Jonah Hirsch et al Doc. 62 1 2 O 3 4 5 NO JS-6 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 HEATHER HUGHES, an individual; HEATHER HUGHES PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Washington, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 17 18 19 JONAH HIRSCH, an individual; FIXED POINT FILMS, an entity of unknown form; HELPING HANDS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina, 20 Defendants. 21 ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 13-02173 DDP (JCGx) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. No. 51] 22 23 Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 24 Judgment. 25 court grants the motion and adopts the following order. 26 I. 27 28 Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Background In 2008, Plaintiff Heather Hughes (“Hughes”) purchased the rights to a screenplay (the “Script”) titled “Sarah’s Gift.” Dockets.Justia.com 1 (Declaration of Sarah Lupen, Ex. H ¶ 2.) Hughes rewrote and 2 renamed the script, which she the registered with the United States 3 Copyright Office and Writer’s Guild of America West. 4 Ex. H ¶¶ 3-4.) 5 (Lupen Decl., In 2011, Defendant Jonah Hirsch (“Hirsch”) recommended the 6 Script to Helping Hands Productions, LLC (“Helping Hands”).1 7 (Lupen Decl., Ex. B ¶ 3.) 8 to produce the film on its behalf and was tasked with an obtaining 9 an option on the screenplay as well as to develop the screenplay Hirsch “was attached by [Helping Hands] 10 into a draft suitable for production.” 11 Jonah Hirsch in Opposition to MSJ ¶ 5.) 12 “numerous creative notes relating to story, character and tone.”) 13 (Hirsch Decl. ¶ 4.; Lupen Decl. Ex. H(B).) 14 (Id. ¶ 5; Declaration of Hirsch also provided In July 2011, Hughes entered into a purchase option agreement 15 with Helping Hands. 16 Hughes $7,500 for a one-year option ending July 26, 2012. 17 Decl., Ex. H ¶ 11.) 18 Helping Hands had the right to extend its purchase option for 19 another year by tendering another $7,500 to Hughes at any time 20 prior to July 26, 2012. 21 not purchase the script. 22 (Lupen Decl., Ex. J.) Helping Hands paid (Lupen Under the terms of the option agreement, (Lupen Decl., Ex. J.) Helping Hands did (Lupen Decl., Ex. H ¶¶ 12, 15.) A dispute arose as to the ownership of the Script, leading 23 Plaintiffs to file the instant action in this court. 24 and Helping Hands arbitrated their dispute, which resulted in an 25 arbitration award concluding that Helping Hands had no claim to the Plaintiffs 26 27 1 28 Defendant Fixed Point Films is wholly owned by Hirsch. (Lupen Decl., Ex. A.) 2 1 Script. 2 entered into a stipulated judgment in this case. 3 (Lupen Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiffs and Helping hands then (Dkt. 46, 48). Hirsch and Fixed Point declined to submit to binding 4 arbitration. 5 Hughes is the sole owner of the Script.2 6 II. 7 Plaintiffs now seek summary judgment declaring that Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, 8 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 9 together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 10 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 11 to judgment as a matter of law.” 12 seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the 13 court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions 14 of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the 15 absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 16 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 17 the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. 18 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). 19 If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it 20 is entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there 21 is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” 22 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party See Celotex Corp. v. All reasonable inferences from See Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiffs request that the court dismiss their remaining claims for interference with prospective economic relations, conversion, and unfair business practices. That request is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First, Second, and Third causes of action are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3 1 specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 2 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 3 party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 4 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on 5 which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 6 477 U.S. at 322. 7 that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 8 party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome 9 of the suit under the governing law.” Summary judgment is warranted if a Celotex, A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 10 There is no genuine issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a 11 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non- 12 moving party.” 13 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 14 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a 15 genuine issue of triable fact.” 16 1278 (9th Cir. 1996). Counsel has an obligation to lay out their 17 support clearly. 18 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 20 evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate 21 references so that it could conveniently be found." 22 III. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d The court “need not examine the entire Id. Discussion 23 There do not appear to be any disputes of material fact.3 24 Hirsch does not dispute that “he was involved with” Helping Hands. 25 (Opposition at 1.) Hirsch also states that he makes no claims of 26 3 27 28 Though Defendant Hirsch, appearing pro se, did not timely file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, the court has considered Hirsch’s late-filed opposition in the interest of deciding matters on the merits. 4 1 ownership to the Script. 2 ownership only of “certain creative notes which were all . . . 3 original ideas and intellectual property . . .” 4 (Opp. at 2.) Rather, Hirsch claims (Id.) Hirsch’s argument is somewhat unclear to the court. 5 Plaintiffs claim only that they own all rights, title, and interest 6 to the Script, to which Hirsch appears to stake no claim. 7 54; Opp. at 2.) 8 in favor of Plaintiffs. 9 (FAC ¶ This alone would seem to warrant summary judgment To the extent Hirsch contends that Plaintiffs are not the sole 10 owners of the Script because Hirsch owns certain notes or ideas 11 incorporated into the Script, Hirsch is mistaken. 12 alone are simply not copyrightable. 13 Co., 827 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1987); 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). 14 particular creative expressions, which include specific details of 15 an author’s rendering of an idea, are protectable. 16 Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 17 2006). 18 such expressions here. 19 First, ideas Worth v. Selchow & Righter Only Funky Films, Hirsch has not pointed to, nor is the court aware of, any Furthermore, even if Hirsch did own a copyright to creative 20 expressions incorporated into the Script, that would not 21 necessarily entitle him to an authorship or ownership interest in 22 the Script. 23 valuable and copyrightable contribution.” 24 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 joint authorship present here. 26 Accordingly, there can be no dispute that Hughes is the sole owner 27 of the Script. 28 /// “[A]uthorship is not the same thing as making a Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 Nor are any of the indicators of See Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234. 5 1 2 IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 3 Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First, Second, and Third causes 4 of action are DISMISSED, with prejudice, at Plaintiffs’ request. 5 Each party shall bear its own costs. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 11 Dated: September 18, 2014 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
