Douglas Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
859 F.3d 1184
9th Cir.2017Background
- Douglas Jordan-Benel wrote and registered a 2011 screenplay, Settler’s Day, about a sanctioned 24-hour period when crimes are allowed; he submitted it to United Talent Agency (UTA) for sale.
- UTA passed on the script but allegedly forwarded it to clients James DeMonaco and Sebastian Lemercier, who later created the film The Purge (2013) and sequels.
- Jordan-Benel sued for copyright infringement and for breach of implied-in-fact contract (an "idea theft" claim) seeking compensation and credit; he also sought declaratory relief (later dismissed).
- Defendants (DeMonaco, Universal, and production entities) moved to strike Jordan-Benel’s state-law claims under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute; the district court denied the motion as to the breach claim.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and framed the core question as whether Jordan‑Benel’s breach claim "arises from" defendants’ protected free‑speech activity (the making/distribution of the films) or from a non‑protected act (failure to pay).
- The court held the operative breach claim challenges defendants’ alleged failure to pay (the specific wrongful act), not the filmmaking itself, and therefore anti‑SLAPP does not apply to that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti‑SLAPP applies to Jordan‑Benel’s breach of implied‑in‑fact contract claim | Jordan‑Benel: claim arises from defendants’ failure to pay for use of his idea, not from film creation/distribution | Defendants: claim arises from protected activity (creation/production/distribution/content of The Purge); thus anti‑SLAPP applies | Held: Claim arises from the specific wrongful act — failure to pay — so anti‑SLAPP does not apply |
| How to identify the conduct a claim "arises from" under anti‑SLAPP | Focus on the specific act of wrongdoing alleged (failure to pay) | Defendants: a "but for" approach — any protected activity that enabled the claim means it arises from protected activity | Held: Adopt the California Court of Appeal approach: identify the specific wrongful conduct; a broad "but for" test is overbroad |
| Whether an "idea theft" (implied‑in‑fact contract) claim is transformed from copyright to contract law | Jordan‑Benel: implied promise to pay is the extra element making it a contract claim | Defendants: creation/use of the film is central and thus protected | Held: Courts treat idea submissions with an implied promise to pay as contract claims; the breach is failure to pay, not creation/use of the expressive work |
| Whether failure to credit (abandoned here) should be considered under anti‑SLAPP | Jordan‑Benel: originally sought credit but abandoned those claims at argument | Defendants: argued anti‑SLAPP could have struck credit claims and seek fees | Held: Court declines to rule on credit claims in the first instance; leaves fees/other SLAPP issues for remand/district court |
Key Cases Cited
- DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., 706 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (anti‑SLAPP denial is appealable collateral order and reviewed de novo)
- Doe v. Gangland Prods., Inc., 730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.) (anti‑SLAPP analysis focuses on the specific wrongful act underlying the claim)
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir.) (defendant must make prima facie showing that claim arises from protected activity)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 52 P.3d 703 (Cal.) (cause of action must be based on defendant’s protected activity to fall under anti‑SLAPP)
- Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir.) (elements for breach of implied‑in‑fact contract for idea submissions)
- Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (an implied promise to pay converts idea claims into contract claims)
- Desny v. Wilder, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal.) (California recognition of contractual protection for submitted ideas conditioned on payment)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (U.S.) (limits on claims for credit under federal law; relevant to declaratory relief)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 376 P.3d 604 (Cal.) (anti‑SLAPP may be applied to distinct claims within a cause of action)