Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.
649 F.3d 975
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Montz conceived the Ghost Hunters concept in 1981 and pitched it to producers 1996–2003; Montz and Smoller alleged confidential disclosures and an industry practice of compensation for use if the concept was exploited.
- Plaintiffs alleged meetings and presentations to NBC, Pilgrim, and others, with Montz and Smoller presenting screenplays and materials; studios showed interest but allegedly did not license the idea.
- Montz and Smoller filed suit in 2006 asserting copyright infringement and state-law claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of confidence.
- The district court held the state-law claims preempted by federal copyright law; the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, and the case was reheard en banc.
- The en banc court reversed the district court, holding that California implied-in-fact contract and breach-of-confidence claims are not preempted where they rest on bilateral expectations or confidential relationships related to use of a submitted idea; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
- Dissenting views argued preemption should apply and that Montz’ claims are effectively copyright claims with no extra element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of the implied-contract claim? | Montz argues Desny-type claim adds an extra element beyond copyright. | Pilgrim argues the claim is equivalent to copyright rights. | Not preempted; contractual-like right survives preemption. |
| Preemption of the breach-of-confidence claim? | Breach-of-confidence rests on confidential relationship; adds duties beyond copyright. | Claim mirrors copyright rights in disclosure and use. | Not preempted; breach-of-confidence survives as an extra element. |
| Sufficiency of the complaint for both claims? | Complaint alleged confidential disclosure, reasonable expectation of compensation, and non-consensual use. | Allegations insufficient to show implied contract or confidential breach. | Sufficient to proceed; alleged elements mirror Grosso. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (implied contract for use of ideas not preempted by copyright)
- Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) (contractual protection for literary/artistic ideas; not preempted)
- Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715 (Cal. 1956) (implied contract to pay for used ideas in entertainment industry)
- Del Madera Props. v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., 820 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1987) (unjust enrichment preemption; implied contract distinctions recognized)
- Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 802 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir. 1986) (contract claim as protection for ideas; not preempted)