2:11-cv-08913
C.D. Cal.Feb 8, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust maintains works of Philip K. Dick;
- Defendants negotiated exclusive movie rights to Adjustment Team, which became The Adjustment Bureau;
- The film earned substantial box office and DVD revenue;
- Plaintiff asserts seven claims including copyright relief, contract rights, and multiple equitable/unjust enrichment claims;
- Court considers Defendants’ 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3) motions to dismiss;
- Court bifurcates jurisdiction by staying six contract claims in state court while preserving copyright claim in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over contract claims | Six contract claims share some background facts | Contract claims have separate operative facts and predominate | No supplemental jurisdiction; contract claims dismissed |
| Whether the copyright claim and contract claims share a common nucleus of fact | There is a nexus between copyright and contract | Facts are largely separate; copyright is not controlling for contract | Not a common nucleus; bifurcate into federal copyright and state contract claims |
| Whether to bifurcate proceedings between federal copyright and state contract claims | Keep all claims in one forum | Efficiency favors bifurcation | Bifurcate; proceed with copyright federal and contract in state court |
| Whether there is diversity jurisdiction | N/A or alleged differently | Parties are California citizens; diversity lacking | Diversity lacking; no basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. United Mine Workers of Am., 383 U.S. 725 (1966) (utility of pendent jurisdiction factors; Gibbs factors for jurisdiction)
- Ackoff-Ortega v. Windswept Pacific Entertainment Co., 98 F. Supp. 2d 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (distinguishable; contract obligations can be determined apart from copyright claim)
- S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizes nexus between copyright and contract claims but lacks detailed Gibbs analysis)
- Trilithic, Inc. v. Wavetek U.S., 6 F. Supp. 2d 803 (S.D. Ind. 1998) (facts for patent and nondisclosure agreement claims are separate; no supplemental jurisdiction)