Stoddard White, Jr. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corporat
572 F. App'x 475
9th Cir.2014Background
- Stoddard White, Jr. appeals pro se from a district court Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his copyright complaint.
- This panel reviews the district court de novo and affirms the dismissal.
- A copyright claim requires ownership, access, and substantial similarity between works; failure on any element defeats the claim.
- The district court concluded White’s screenplay was not substantially similar to the defendants’ works.
- The court found many similarities alleged by White to be non-protectable and noted significant differences (e.g., dog injury) that defeat substantial similarity.
- The court also addressed White’s discovery-related arguments and potential fraud claim damages, ultimately affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White shows substantial similarity. | White asserts protectable similarities between works. | Defendants contend similarities are either non-protectable or insufficiently concrete. | Not substantially similar as a matter of law. |
| Whether discovery materials and Blu-Ray version affect substantial similarity analysis. | White preserves arguments to review early drafts and Blu-Ray version. | Operative question is films vs. screenplay; discovery/discrete versions are irrelevant. | District court properly disregarded Blu-Ray and did not err on discovery. |
| Whether White can maintain a fraud claim based on damages. | White alleges fraud based on copying. | Even if asserted, there are no damages shown from lack of substantial similarity. | Fraud claim fails for lack of damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985) (elements of copyright claim; substantial similarity required)
- Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (extrinsic/intrinsic similarity; non-protectable similarities may be discarded)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (lack of cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts supports dismissal)
- Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; standard)
- See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1983) (discovery relevance limited to copying; later drafts may be non-infringing)
- Bank of the West v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona, 41 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 1994) (damages element required for fraud claim)