Neil Goldberg v. James Cameron
694 F. App'x 564
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Neil Goldberg sued James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd, alleging they misappropriated his copyrighted work to create the Terminator films.
- This was Goldberg’s third lawsuit against the same defendants arising from the same alleged misappropriation in 1981–82.
- Goldberg’s original state-court complaint included a federal copyright-infringement claim, and defendants removed the case to federal court under federal-question and copyright jurisdiction.
- Goldberg later filed in state court an unserved amended complaint and an unserved request to dismiss the copyright claim before removal; those filings were not served on defendants prior to removal.
- The district court denied Goldberg’s motion to remand and granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the complaint on res judicata grounds as claims were identical to those in his first action, which produced a final judgment on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand was required after Goldberg filed unserved state-court filings omitting the copyright claim | Goldberg argued the subsequent state-court filings eliminated the federal copyright claim and required remand | Defendants argued removal was proper because only documents served on defendants at time of removal are relevant, and the copyright claim remained in the served pleadings | Court held remand denial was correct; only served pleadings count for removal analysis, so federal question jurisdiction existed |
| Whether district court may consider res judicata on Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Goldberg contended dismissal on res judicata was improper via 12(b)(6) | Defendants argued res judicata is a proper basis for dismissal when no factual disputes exist | Court held dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate because res judicata raised no disputed facts |
| Whether Goldberg’s claims are barred by res judicata | Goldberg argued his new complaint was not precluded | Defendants argued the claims arose from the same transactional nucleus as the first action and thus were barred | Court held res judicata barred the claims due to identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits, and identity/privity of parties |
| Whether Goldberg preserved challenge to validity of first judgment | Goldberg did not present detailed challenges to the prior judgment’s validity | Defendants argued any attack was waived by lack of specific briefing | Court held any challenge to validity was waived for failure to brief the issue specifically |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (removability determined from the served pleadings' four corners)
- Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on res judicata where no factual disputes exist)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements for claim preclusion: identity of claims, final judgment on the merits, identity or privity of parties)
- Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) (issues not argued distinctly in opening brief are waived)