616 F. App'x 515
3d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Amy Gonzales (pen name Isabella Tanikumi) authored autobiographical books collectively called Yearnings and sued Disney alleging Frozen infringed her copyrights.
- Complaint sought injunctive relief to stop distribution of Frozen and $250,000,000 plus punitive damages.
- Disney moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead substantial similarity; District Court granted the motion without receiving plaintiff’s opposition (a stipulation for an extension was not considered).
- Plaintiff filed a post-judgment opposition and the District Court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen and denied relief, concluding the complaint failed to state a plausible infringement claim.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed de novo the 12(b)(6) dismissal and for abuse of discretion the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, and affirmed—holding Frozen and Yearnings are not substantially similar in protected expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused discretion in handling Rule 60(b) relief and the two-step procedure | Tanikumi: court should have vacated judgment first then re-decided Disney’s motion after considering her opposition | Disney: denial proper because plaintiff failed to show a meritorious claim; vacating would be an empty exercise | Affirmed: court properly required a showing of a meritorious claim and considered opposition without vacating first |
| Whether the District Court applied an improper heightened standard when reviewing Rule 60(b) filing | Tanikumi: court applied "brutal" standard and sought special circumstances | Disney: court applied standard for extraordinary circumstances then evaluated pleading plausibility | Affirmed: court considered Rule 60(b) grounds then evaluated plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly |
| Whether the court erred by comparing the works at the pleading stage | Tanikumi: comparing works requires factual development and is improper on a 12(b)(6) motion | Disney: works were integral to the complaint and may be considered on a motion to dismiss | Affirmed: courts may consider integral, authentic works and compare them visually on a 12(b)(6) motion |
| Whether Yearnings and Frozen are substantially similar in protectable expression | Tanikumi: pointed to numerous similarities of characters, events, emotions, settings | Disney: similarities are generic themes/ideas not protectable; mood and expression differ dramatically | Affirmed: similarities were unprotectable themes/prototypical elements; no substantial similarity in protectable expression |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claim)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts may visually compare works on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Dam Things from Den. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) (substantial similarity inquiry and access requirement)
- Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2005) (distinguishing idea/theme from protectable expression)
- Lepkowski v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b) requires showing of meritorious claim)
- In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 234 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denial)
- Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (themes common to a genre are not protectable)