Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:111
`
`NICOLAS A. JAMPOL (State Bar No. 244867)
` nicolasjampol@dwt.com
`DIANA PALACIOS (State Bar No. 290923)
` dianapalacios@dwt.com
`CYDNEY SWOFFORD FREEMAN (State Bar No. 315766)
` cydneyfreeman@dwt.com
`CAMILA PEDRAZA (State Bar No. 329984)
` camilapedraza@dwt.com
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2566
`Telephone: (213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BLINDING EDGE PICTURES, INC.; UNCLE
`GEORGE PRODUCTIONS, LLC; APPLE INC.;
`ESCAPE ARTISTS, INC. (erroneously sued as
`ESCAPE ARTISTS LLC); DOLPHIN BLACK
`PRODUCTIONS; M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN;
`TONY BASGALLOP; ASHWIN RAJAN;
`JASON BLUMENTHAL; TODD BLACK;
`STEVE TISCH
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT
`Date: March 23, 2020
`Time:
`1:30 p.m.
`Crtrm:
`7A
`
`FRANCESCA GREGORINI,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`APPLE INC., a California corporation;
`M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, an
`individual, BLINDING EDGE
`PICTURES, INC., a Pennsylvania
`corporation; UNCLE GEORGE
`PRODUCTIONS, a Pennsylvania
`corporate; ESCAPE ARTISTS LLC, a
`California limited liability company;
`DOLPHIN BLACK PRODUCTIONS, a
`California corporation; TONY
`BASGALLOP, an individual; ASHWIN
`RAJAN, an individual; JASON
`BLUMENTHAL, an individual; TODD
`BLACK, an individual; STEVE TISCH,
`an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:112
`
`TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 23, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as
`may be heard in Courtroom 7A of the United States District Court for the Central
`District of California, First Street Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Los Angeles,
`California 90012, defendants Blinding Edge Pictures, Inc., Uncle George
`Productions, LLC, Apple Inc., Escape Artists, Inc. (erroneously sued as Escape
`Artists LLC), Dolphin Black Productions, M. Night Shyamalan, Tony Basgallop,
`Ashwin Rajan, Jason Blumenthal, Todd Black, and Steve Tisch (collectively,
`“Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order dismissing with
`prejudice the complaint filed by plaintiff Francesca Gregorini (“Plaintiff”).
`This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on
`the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Her first cause of action
`for copyright infringement fails because there is no substantial similarity of
`protected expression between the works at issue. Because her claim for direct
`copyright infringement fails, so too does her second cause of action for contributory
`and vicarious copyright infringement.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and
`authorities, the request for judicial notice, the declaration of Cydney Swofford
`Freeman, the notice of lodging with exhibits, and all other matters of which this
`Court may take judicial notice, the pleadings, files, and records in this action, and
`on any argument heard by this Court.
`This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
`which took place on February 11, 2020. See Dkt. 18.
`
`DATED: February 18, 2020
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`By: /s/ Nicolas A. Jampol
`Nicolas A. Jampol
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:113
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`B.
`C.
`
`b.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Truth About Emanuel .................................................................... 2
`B.
`Servant .................................................................................................. 3
`C.
`The Complaint ...................................................................................... 5
`THE WORKS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ............................ 5
`A.
`Lack of Substantial Similarity May Be Decided on a Motion to
`Dismiss ................................................................................................. 6
`Courts Must Filter Out Unprotectable Expression ............................... 7
`The Works’ Protected Expression Is Not Substantially Similar .......... 8
`1.
`Plot ............................................................................................. 9
`a.
`Most of the Alleged Plot Similarities Are
`Unprotectable. .................................................................. 9
`The Complaint Mischaracterizes Alleged Plot
`Similarities. .................................................................... 10
`The Works’ Plots Are Not Substantially Similar. ......... 11
`c.
`Sequence of Events .................................................................. 13
`Theme ....................................................................................... 14
`Characters ................................................................................. 16
`a.
`Emanuel and Leanne ...................................................... 16
`b.
`Linda and Dorothy ......................................................... 18
`c.
`Thomas and Sean ........................................................... 19
`d.
`Arthur and Julian ........................................................... 19
`e.
`Claude and Tobe ............................................................ 20
`f.
`The Dolls ........................................................................ 21
`g.
`Other Characters ............................................................ 21
`Setting ....................................................................................... 21
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:114
`
`Mood ........................................................................................ 23
`6.
`Pace .......................................................................................... 24
`7.
`Dialogue ................................................................................... 24
`8.
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Vicarious and Contributory Infringement
`Fails .................................................................................................... 25
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`D.
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:115
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Apple v. Microsoft,
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................. 7
`Arica Inst. v. Palmer,
`970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992) ................................................................................. 8
`Benay v. Warner Bros.,
`607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 7, 21
`Berkic v. Crichton,
`761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................. 11
`Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Lit. Agency,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................. 8
`Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.,
`297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 7
`Christianson v. West Pub. Co.,
`149 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1945) ................................................................................. 6
`Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc.,
`150 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1945) ................................................................................... 1
`DuckHole v. NBC Universal,
`2013 WL 5797279 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2013) ......................................................... 6
`Fillmore v. Blumhouse,
`2017 WL 4708018 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) ................................................ 6, 8, 23
`Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network,
`747 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 25
`Funky Films v. Time Warner Entm’t,
`462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 7, 11
`Gadh v. Spiegel,
`2014 WL 1778950 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) ......................................................... 6
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:116
`
`Gallagher v. Lions Gate Entm’t,
`2015 WL 12481504 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) .................................................. 24
`Heusey v. Emmerich,
`2015 WL 12765115 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015) ....................................................... 6
`Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures,
`16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................. 8
`Litchfield v. Spielberg,
`736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................................... 1, 8
`Marcus v. ABC Signature Studios,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................. 6
`Olson v. Nat’l Broad. Co.,
`855 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 24
`Rentmeester v. Nike,
`883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 6
`Shame on You Prods. v. Banks,
`120 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................... 7, 8, 16, 18, 19
`Silas v. Home Box Office,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................ passim
`Stern v. Does,
`978 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................... 24
`Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,
`212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 5
`Walker v. Time Life Films,
`784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................... 8
`Wild v. NBC Universal,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................. 6
`Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co.,
`529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................. 6, 7
`Rules
`Federal Rule of Evidence 201 ..................................................................................... 6
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:117
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Francesca Gregorini’s lawsuit is another example of “that
`obsessive conviction, so common among authors and composers, that all similarities
`between their works and any others which appear later must inevitably be ascribed
`to plagiarism.” Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1984)
`(quoting Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 150 F.2d 612, 613 (2d Cir. 1945)). This
`truism is particularly applicable to Plaintiff’s attempt to claim ownership over
`unprotectable ideas, including a grieving mother who believes a therapy doll is her
`deceased child or “white, sophisticated, and privileged” parents hiring a nanny for
`their “well-put-together home.” These concepts are taken from real life and are
`found in countless movies, television programs, and other works.
`While Plaintiff’s film The Truth About Emanuel (“Emanuel”) and
`Defendants’ television series Servant both employ aspects of these unprotectable
`concepts, the similarities end there. In Emanuel, a quintessential American teenager
`struggling to cope with the loss of her mother and her next-door neighbor struggling
`to cope with the loss of her baby together experience the catharsis of acceptance. In
`Servant, a deeply religious self-flagellating young woman leaves her cult to be a
`nanny for a family that she has targeted, and seemingly transforms a doll into a real
`baby while—in the midst of various supernatural events—other characters attempt
`to find out where the baby and nanny are from. As one character ominously asks in
`the trailer, “do you know who you welcomed into your home?” See RJN § 1.
`To divert attention from the fact that Emanuel and Servant tell vastly
`different stories, Plaintiff has assembled a laundry list of alleged similarities. Many
`of these alleged similarities flow from unprotectable concepts, while others are
`ubiquitous in film and television. Plaintiff relies heavily on these common
`elements, such as the “mystery/danger of a stranger coming to town,” a home with a
`wooden staircase, “tight shots of characters’ faces,” or, incredibly, ominous music
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:118
`
`A.
`
`used to “signify danger.” Once these elements are disregarded, as they must be,
`there is almost no similarity of protectable expression.1
`Defendants agree that “anyone who takes the time to view and compare the
`works” will reach an “inescapable conclusion” (Compl. ¶ 5), but the conclusion will
`be that Emanuel and Servant are not substantially similar. Accordingly, Defendants
`respectfully request that this Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The Truth About Emanuel
`Emanuel is an “emotional story about motherhood and daughterhood.”
`Compl. ¶ 10; Dkt. 13.2 It is told from the point of view of Emanuel, a typical
`teenager who struggles with the guilt of knowing her mother died giving birth to
`her, and attempts to coexist with her new stepmother. Most days, she takes the train
`to her job at a medical supply store, listening to music or sitting with her boyfriend
`Claude. After a single mother (Linda)—who “bears a striking resemblance” to
`Emanuel’s deceased mother—moves in next door, Emanuel offers to babysit. See
`Dkt. 13 (DVD back cover); id. at 7:57. When Emanuel finally meets the “baby,” she
`is stunned to discover that the child is a doll. Id. at 21:00.
`Despite this discovery, Emanuel continues to visit Linda (when she is not
`working or with her family or boyfriend). At first, Emanuel remains uncomfortable
`with the doll and refuses to help Linda with it, but she later acquiesces. Emanuel
`begins to pretend the doll is a baby in Linda’s presence, but generally not when
`
`1 Plaintiff believes that her lawsuit advances the interests of creators, but just
`the opposite is true: asserting copyright claims based on unprotectable concepts and
`common elements creates a chilling effect, as the various entities that are needed to
`produce and distribute a work exercise more caution about new projects that share
`unprotectable elements or themes with prior works. This results in more roadblocks
`for new creators and jeopardizes the creation of works with new perspectives on
`unprotectable concepts or new uses of common elements.
`2 References to “Dkt. 13” throughout this brief are to the DVD of Emanuel
`that Plaintiff lodged with the Court at Dkt. 13. See also RJN § 1.
`2
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:119
`
`Linda is gone. Emanuel’s affection for Linda grows as she (and the audience)
`attempts to figure out why Linda is pretending the doll is a real baby. Emanuel is
`protective of Linda and concerned about others discovering the truth, routinely
`making excuses as to why others cannot meet the baby. She falls deeper into
`Linda’s orbit, until Linda brings home a date (Arthur) who discovers the doll and,
`assuming that Emanuel harmed the actual child, calls the police. Dkt. 13 at 1:07:15.
`Linda is committed to an institution, and while she is there, her ex-husband
`(Thomas) comes to Emanuel’s house to explain that his and Linda’s baby died of an
`unknown cause. Dkt. 13 at 1:18:30. Thomas reveals that Linda refused to go to her
`daughter’s burial and was given a therapy doll. When Linda started to believe the
`doll was real, Thomas tried to have her committed, but Linda fled. After this
`discovery, Emanuel decides to free Linda from the institution. She breaks into the
`facility and takes Linda to Emanuel’s mother’s grave, the first time Emanuel has
`visited. Id. at 1:21:05. She sobs while she digs a hole at the gravesite, and the two
`bury the doll next to Emanuel’s mother, each processing her own grief. Id. at
`1:27:00. The film closes on the pair looking up at the stars, finally headed toward
`acceptance. Id. at 1:29:50.
`B.
`Servant
`Servant is a psychological thriller that explores the question asked in the
`trailer: “do you know who you welcomed into your home?”3 The series portrays a
`wealthy couple (Dorothy and Sean Turner) that hires a full-time, live-in nanny
`(Leanne) for their baby son Jericho, which—as the audience already knows from
`the trailer—is a doll that was given to Dorothy to cope with the loss of their child.
`See RJN § 1. Jericho died after Dorothy inadvertently left him in her car for hours
`in the middle of summer, which Dorothy never accepted, instead slipping into
`
`3 Defendants are lodging Episodes 1-10 of Servant as Exhibits 1-10 to the
`declaration of Cydney Swofford Freeman. See also RJN § 1.
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:120
`
`denial and delusion. From the outset, viewers discover that Leanne is no ordinary
`teenager, but instead a creepy, deeply religious, possibly paranormal, self-
`flagellating cult member who subsists on cans of tomato soup and creates wooden
`crosses (and who, the audience later learns, specifically targeted the Turners).
`When the audience first sees Leanne with the doll, she picks it up like a real
`baby, sings to it, changes its diaper, and never treats the doll as anything other than
`a living child even when nobody is watching and despite Sean telling Leanne she
`need not pretend around him. E.g., Ex. 1 at 13:11, 17:17, 29:01. Sean explains to
`Leanne that the doll is a “reborn doll” (a real-life therapy doll, RJN § 2), which was
`prescribed to Dorothy after Jericho died. But Leanne continues interacting with the
`doll just as she would a real baby. She never acknowledges that the doll is not real,
`and does not attempt to shield the doll from public view in any way, taking him on
`walks and otherwise out in public. E.g., id. at 17:17.
`At the end of the first episode, Sean hears crying on the baby monitor and
`walks into the nursery to find a real baby. Ex. 1 at 34:08. In the next episode, he
`confronts Leanne, who has no reaction to the child being any different. When Sean
`asks her whose baby the child is, she calmly replies, “that’s your baby Mr. Turner,
`it’s Jericho.” Ex. 2 at 3:17. From there, the seemingly supernatural occurrences
`take flight, each tied back to Leanne. For example, as Sean’s relationship with
`Leanne sours, he begins to get wooden splinters all over his body, including
`unlikely places like his throat, and then loses his ability to taste, smell, and,
`eventually, feel. E.g., id. at 10:38, 17:44, 27:10, 28:11. Leanne also seemingly has
`the ability to bring the dead back to life, including a cricket, a stray dog, and,
`possibly, a human baby. Ex. 1 at 34:08; Ex. 5 at 30:59; Ex. 7 at 28:02.
`Wary of Leanne, Dorothy’s protective brother Julian—an abrasive character
`with drink always in hand—hires a private investigator (Roscoe) to track down
`information about Leanne, who he believes may have kidnapped the baby that is
`currently in the Turners’ home. Julian and Roscoe visit Leanne’s hometown and
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:121
`
`discover gravestones belonging to Leanne’s parents, and to Leanne herself. Ex. 3 at
`8:31, 10:17, 26:12. This ominous and confusing discovery is explained later in the
`season—Leanne’s cult-member aunt (May) and uncle (George) took Leanne in after
`a fire killed her parents, and pretended Leanne had died so they could raise her “as
`God instructed.” Ex. 10 at 12:15.
`At the end of the first season, Aunt May pressures Leanne to rejoin their cult,
`telling her that Dorothy is undeserving of the “second chance” Leanne is giving her.
`Leanne leaves the Turners, and when Dorothy hurries to the nursery after finding
`Leanne’s room empty, she finds the doll instead of the baby. In the last scene of the
`season, Dorothy seems to realize that the doll is not her son. Ex. 10 at 31:39.
`Apple released the first three episodes to Apple TV+ subscribers on
`November 28, 2020, with the remaining seven episodes released weekly after that.
`C.
`The Complaint
`On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed her complaint for direct, contributory,
`and vicarious copyright infringement. The complaint alleges that three of the ten
`episodes of Servant are “strikingly similar” to Emanuel. The works themselves
`reveal that there is almost no similarity of protectable expression between them—let
`alone substantial similarity. Accordingly, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s
`complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
`THE WORKS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
`To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must demonstrate the protected
`expression in Emanuel and Servant is substantially similar. She cannot. Three
`Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000).4
`
`4 Plaintiffs in copyright actions must also establish that the defendants had
`access to the allegedly infringing work. Three Boys Music Corp., 212 F.3d at 481.
`Though Defendants dispute that any of them ever had access to Emanuel, solely for
`purposes of this motion, Defendants do not challenge access.
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:122
`
`A.
`
`Lack of Substantial Similarity May Be Decided on a Motion to Dismiss
`A court may compare the works at issue in a copyright-infringement claim
`and dismiss the claim as a matter of law if they are not substantially similar. As this
`Court explained, “[t]here is ample authority for holding that when the copyrighted
`work and the alleged infringement are both before the court, capable of examination
`and comparison, non-infringement can be determined on a motion to dismiss.”
`Gadh v. Spiegel, 2014 WL 1778950, at *3 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) (Walter, J.)
`(quoting Christianson v. West Pub. Co., 149 F.2d 202, 203 (9th Cir. 1945)). See
`also Rentmeester v. Nike, 883 F.3d 1111, 1123 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). Indeed, for
`nearly 75 years, “courts have followed this rather obvious principle and dismissed
`copyright claims that fail from the face of the complaint (and in light of all matters
`properly considered on a motion to dismiss).” Gadh, 2014 WL 1778950, at *3 n.2
`(citing Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2007)).
`See also Heusey v. Emmerich, 2015 WL 12765115, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015)
`(granting motion to dismiss copyright claim for lack of substantial similarity), aff’d,
`692 Fed. Appx. 928 (9th Cir. 2017); Wild v. NBC Universal, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1083,
`1097 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (same), aff’d, 513 Fed. Appx. 640 (9th Cir. 2013).
`In considering a motion to dismiss, courts may also “consider matters subject
`to judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Zella, 529 F. Supp. 2d
`at 1128. In particular, courts may consider facts “not subject to reasonable dispute,”
`Marcus v. ABC Signature Studios, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1062-1063 (C.D. Cal.
`2017), and “generic elements of creative works,” Zella, 529 F. Supp. 2d at 1129.
`See also Heusey, 2015 WL 12765115, at *4 (judicial notice of “historical events,
`theories commonly-held by historians, and the political atmosphere of the
`Elizabethan era”); Fillmore v. Blumhouse, 2017 WL 4708018, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
`July 7, 2017) (judicial notice that “[b]ringing the dead back to life” is common in
`horror, fantasy, and sci-fi, and that “[d]ream sequences are a common narrative
`device in works of fiction”); DuckHole v. NBC Universal, 2013 WL 5797279, at *4
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:123
`
`(C.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2013) (judicial notice of generic elements of veterinary-themed
`sitcoms, like (1) settings of an operating room, exam room, and lobby; (2) pets;
`(3) a comedic tone; and (4) romantic relationships).
`B.
`Courts Must Filter Out Unprotectable Expression
`To assess substantial similarity on a motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit uses
`the “extrinsic test,” which focuses on objective “articulable similarities” between
`the works. Zella, 529 F. Supp. 2d at 1133. In comparing the works, “a court must
`filter out and disregard the non-protectible elements.” Cavalier v. Random House,
`Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002). Indeed, courts “may place no reliance upon
`any similarity in expression resulting from unprotectable elements.” Apple v.
`Microsoft, 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original). This is
`because “similarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected;
`otherwise, the first to come up with an idea will corner the market.” Id. at 1443.
`Accordingly, courts filter out so-called scenes a faire, or elements that flow
`naturally from a basic premise. Cavalier, 297 F.3d at 823. For example, in Benay
`v. Warner Bros., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit disregarded
`numerous similarities that flowed from the works’ shared “basic plot premise” of
`“an American war veteran [who] travels to Japan in the 1870s to train the Imperial
`Army in modern Western warfare.” Id. at 625. See also Shame on You Prods. v.
`Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1151 (C.D. Cal. 2015), aff’d, 690 F. App’x 519 (9th
`Cir. 2017) (dismissing copyright claim after disregarding similarities flowing from
`the works’ shared premise, such as “[g]etting drunk, spending a ‘one-nighter’ with
`someone you just met, waking up disoriented the next morning at the individual’s
`house or apartment, and putting on the clothes worn the night before”); Funky Films
`v. Time Warner Entm’t, 462 F.3d 1072, 1077-1081 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that the
`plaintiff’s extensive alleged similarities relied “heavily on scenes a faire – not
`concrete renderings specific to [plaintiff’s work] – and are, at best, coincidental”).
`
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Document 20 Filed 02/18/20 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:124
`
`Courts also routinely filter out generic or common elements before analyzing
`for substantial similarity. See, e.g., Fillmore, 2017 WL 4708018, at *3 (finding that
`“[d]ream sequences” and “[b]ringing the dead back to life” are unprotectable);
`Shame on You Prods., 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1159 (“outdoor chase on wheels” was too
`generic of a concept to be protectable).
`C.
`The Works’ Protected Expression Is Not Substantially Similar
`Once unprotectable elements are filtered out, courts must then compare the
`objective, “specific expressive elements” of the works at issue. Kouf v. Walt Disney
`Pictures, 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994). This comparison focuses on
`“articulable similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace,
`characters, and sequence of events in the two works.” Id.
`Importantly, courts repeatedly find that lists of “random similarities scattered
`throughout the works” are insufficient to satisfy the extrinsic test because they are
`“inherently subjective and unreliable.” See Litchfield, 736 F.2d at 1356. Indeed,
`courts have readily disposed of copyright claims even where the list of alleged
`similarities is extensive. See, e.g., Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Lit. Agency, 788 F.
`Supp. 2d 1043, 1061, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (133-page chart with side-by-side
`comparisons of the works); Arica Inst. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1073 (2d Cir.
`1992) (70-page appendix of similarities). To assess similarity, the law requires a
`review of the actual works, not a plaintiff’s characterization of them. See Walker v.
`Time Life Films, 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d Cir. 1986) (“[T]he works themselves, not
`descriptions or impressions of them, are the real test for claims of infringement.”).
`Plaintiff attempts to limit the Court’s analysis by alleging infringement in
`only the first three episodes of Servant and suggesting that the latter seven episodes
`merely add “self-contained vignettes or sub-plots.” Compl. ¶¶ 78, 83 n.11. In fact,
`each of the ten episodes reveals crucial information about characters and events
`from the first three episodes, for example how Jericho died and why Leanne applied
`for a position with the Turners. The complaint’s own allegations also extend
`
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`4838-2051-0130v.8 0113237-000003
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
`(213) 633-6800
`Fax: (213) 633-6899
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`C