Sobini Films v. Clear Skies Nevada CA2/8
B267431
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Sobini Films (plaintiff) and its CEO Mark Amin contracted with Clear Skies/Voltage (defendants) for co-financing Good Kill; the term sheet guaranteed Amin a single-card "Produced by" on the main title and required defendants to use good faith efforts to cure credit errors after written notice, but stated casual or inadvertent failures would not be breaches.
- A rough cut and multiple screeners showed Amin’s name on a shared producer card; Amin noticed the error in July 2014 and was told the credits were a temporary placeholder that would be fixed.
- The film premiered at festivals in September 2014 and was delivered to distributors in January 2015; Amin did not press the issue until April 2015 and plaintiffs sent written notice then; the U.S. theatrical release occurred May 15, 2015.
- Defendants supplied a corrected main-title sequence in June 2015; plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, promissory fraud, and sought injunctive relief; defendants moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16).
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the disputed conduct (creation and dissemination of the film’s credit sequence) was protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest and plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute (public interest) | Credits are not a matter of public interest; this dispute is contractual, not public speech | The creation and dissemination of the film (including producer credits) is protected free-speech activity connected to a public-interest topic | Held for defendants: credit listing in a film is protected activity in connection with a public issue (anti-SLAPP applies) |
| Whether a mistake (vs. intentional act) in credits removes First Amendment protection | A deliberate miscrediting is alleged; a mistake should not be shielded if it harms contractual rights | Both intentional and mistaken speech-related acts fall within protected activity; the act of producing/distributing film is protected even if erroneous | Held: Mistake does not negate protection; the act of creating/distributing the credits is protected speech |
| Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing on breach of contract / implied covenant (including damages) | Amin proved a material credit term was breached and suffered reputational/monetary harm; experts said single-card credit has immeasurable value | The term sheet carved out casual/inadvertent failures from breach; evidence shows the error was a mistake/place-holder, Amin had opportunities to detect it earlier, and defendants corrected it; plaintiffs presented no concrete damages | Held for defendants: plaintiffs failed to show breach (given contract carve-out and facts) and failed to present non-speculative damages |
| Whether promissory fraud was sufficiently pleaded with evidence of intent | Foreman promised to fix credits (per Boehm); failing to do so supports promissory fraud | A bare unfulfilled promise plus nonperformance is insufficient; plaintiffs produced no evidence of fraudulent intent | Held for defendants: no admissible evidence of fraudulent intent; promissory fraud fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 941 (listing producer credits online is protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal.App.4th 1273 (not all movie speech is a matter of public significance; must connect to public interest)
- Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 133 (use of names/creative acts that advance production/broadcast is protected and can be public-interest activity)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (anti-SLAPP statute must be construed broadly; public interest is any issue in which the public takes an interest)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (two-step anti-SLAPP framework)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (de novo appellate review of anti-SLAPP rulings)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (plaintiff must show both legal sufficiency and prima facie evidence to survive anti-SLAPP)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (elements of promissory fraud: promise made without intent to perform must be shown by more than nonperformance)
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (claim for breach of implied covenant requires conscious and deliberate bad faith, not mere mistake)