Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentcopyrightmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 173 A.2d 277
View Case »
Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397, 728 S.E.2d 577, 12 FCDR 1892
View Case »
McWilliams v. Bragg, 3 Wis. 424, 1854 WL 3450
View Case »
Trammell v. Whitlock, 150 Tex. 500, 242 S.W.2d 157
View Case »
Kesner v. Consumers Co., 255 Ill.App. 216, 1929 WL 3403
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bernal v. Paradigm Talent and Literary Agency, 788 F.Supp.2d 1043

Facts

Jill Bernal completed her screenplay 'Homeless' in 2002 and registered it with the Writer's Guild of America. She submitted her screenplay to various actors and producers, including a talent agency, Paradigm, in early 2003. The creator of 'Desperate Housewives', Marc Cherry, was represented by another agent at Paradigm, and Bernal alleged that Cherry copied elements from her screenplay after she submitted it. However, evidence showed that Cherry had already completed drafts of 'Desperate Housewives' before Bernal's submission.

Defendants presented undisputed evidence that Cherry wrote several drafts of the teleplay Desperate Housewives in 2002, many months before Plaintiff sent her screenplay to Paradigm.

Issue

Did the defendants have access to the plaintiff's screenplay, and were the two works substantially similar?

The only question before the Court is whether Defendants copied protected expressions from the screenplay.

Rule

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and that the defendants copied protected expressions from it. Access must be proven, and substantial similarity must be demonstrated through both extrinsic and intrinsic tests.

Rule 56(c) requires summary judgment for the moving party when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Analysis

The court found that Bernal did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Cherry had access to her screenplay before creating 'Desperate Housewives'. The evidence indicated that Cherry had completed drafts of the show prior to Bernal's submission. Furthermore, the court determined that the two works were not substantially similar based on an objective comparison of their ideas and expressions.

In light of this record, Plaintiff has not presented more than a scintilla of evidence to support her theory that Defendants had a reasonable possibility of access to Homeless.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding access or substantial similarity.

For this reason, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Who won?

Defendants American Broadcasting Company and Marc Cherry prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish access to her screenplay and that the works were not substantially similar.

Defendants American Broadcasting Company and Marc Cherry prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish access to her screenplay and that the works were not substantially similar.

You must be