Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 98
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------X
`CHRISTINE DAVIS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN BROADCASTING
`COMPANY (ABC); DELICIOUS NON-
`SEQUITUR PRODUCTIONS; BLUE PARK
`PRODUCTIONS; SHAVON SULLIVAN
`WRIGHT; CHERISSE PARKS; JUSTIN
`HALPERN; PATRICK SCHUMACKER;
`and QUINTA BRUNSON,
`
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`COMPLAINT
`
`Case No.: 22-CV-05944 (KPF)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff Christine Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Davis”), and files this
`
`Complaint against Defendants the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”), Delicious Non-
`
`Sequitur Productions (Non-Sequitur”), Blue Park Productions (“Blue Park”), Shavon Sullivan
`
`Wright (“Wright”), Cherisse Parks (“Parks”), Justin Halpern (“Halpern”), Patrick Schumacker
`
`(“Schumacker”), and Quinta Brunson (“Brunson”) (hereinafter collectively known as
`
`Defendants”) respectfully stating as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. This is a civil action Seeking actual and statutory damages for copyright infringement
`
`arising under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., as amended
`
`(the Copyright Act”).
`
`2. Plaintiff is the sole owner of work copyrighted pursuant to the Copyright Act under
`
`Registration No. PAu004020233. The work pertains to Plaintiff’s original scripted
`
`television series This School Year.
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------X
`CHRISTINE DAVIS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN BROADCASTING
`COMPANY (ABC); DELICIOUS NON-
`SEQUITUR PRODUCTIONS; BLUE PARK
`PRODUCTIONS; SHAVON SULLIVAN
`WRIGHT; CHERISSE PARKS; JUSTIN
`HALPERN; PATRICK SCHUMACKER;
`and QUINTA BRUNSON,
`
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`COMPLAINT
`
`Case No.: 22-CV-05944 (KPF)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff Christine Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Davis”), and files this
`
`Complaint against Defendants the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”), Delicious Non-
`
`Sequitur Productions (Non-Sequitur”), Blue Park Productions (“Blue Park”), Shavon Sullivan
`
`Wright (“Wright”), Cherisse Parks (“Parks”), Justin Halpern (“Halpern”), Patrick Schumacker
`
`(“Schumacker”), and Quinta Brunson (“Brunson”) (hereinafter collectively known as
`
`Defendants”) respectfully stating as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. This is a civil action Seeking actual and statutory damages for copyright infringement
`
`arising under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., as amended
`
`(the Copyright Act”).
`
`2. Plaintiff is the sole owner of work copyrighted pursuant to the Copyright Act under
`
`Registration No. PAu004020233. The work pertains to Plaintiff’s original scripted
`
`television series This School Year.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 98
`
`3. Defendants directed, produced, advertised, sold, and streamed the Abbott Elementary
`
`television series that premiered in December 2021 on Defendant ABC Television Network
`
`and HULU premium television channel and streaming service. Abbott Elementary is a
`
`veritable knock-off of Plaintiff’s proposed television series This School Year.
`
`4. Without Plaintiff’s permission, license, authority or consent, Defendants knowingly and
`
`illegally used Plaintiff’s works to create the Abbott Elementary television series.
`
`5. Defendants’ Abbott Elementary television series and the content protected by Plaintiff’s
`
`registered copyrights are strikingly and substantially similar.
`
`6. Defendants neither sought nor received permission from Plaintiff to utilize her This School
`
`Year work as the basis for Abbott Elementary series.
`
`7. Defendants have made millions in profits from their knowing infringement of Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted works.
`
`8. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, Plaintiff Seeks
`
`damages, including, inter alia, an accounting of profits by Defendants, damages and lost
`
`profits of Plaintiff, costs, and attorneys’ fees; or, at Plaintiff’s election, statutory damages.
`
`Plaintiff also Seeks equitable relief, including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
`
`and impoundment and destruction of the infringing articles, to prevent further violations of
`
`Plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq.
`
`Furthermore, because Defendants willfully and deliberately infringed upon Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted works, Plaintiff Seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17
`
`U.S.C. § 505 along with credit for creating and writing the original source material.
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`9. Plaintiff is a resident of New York City, New York.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 98
`
`10. The American Broadcasting Company is a New York based corporation. It maintains
`
`corporate Headquarters in New York located at 77 West 66th Street, Fifth Floor, New York
`
`NY 10023-6298. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. (DOS# 1095963)
`
`is a business entity registered with the State of New York, Department of State (NYSDOS).
`
`The business filing date is July 8, 1986.
`
`11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Delicious Non-Sequitur Productions, LLC is a
`
`California based company with its principal place of business at 3783 COLLEGE AVE,
`
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92115-7013 (SAN DIEGO COUNTY). Delicious Non-Sequitur is
`
`registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company in the State of Delaware. The
`
`corporation number is #3208109.
`
`12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Blue Park Productions (hereafter “BPP”) is a
`
`Black woman owned production company that whose mission is to “[e]ncourage and train
`
`the next generation of black female identifying creatives so they can develop unique
`
`projects and their own media production companies.”
`
`13. Blue Park Productions is an “incubator and facilitator for talented black women to sell their
`
`original ideas and series to television networks and streaming platforms.
`
`14. BPP claims that “our collective has over 100 years of combined experience. Together we
`
`have over 10,000 hours of programming for major networks and produced over 100 series
`
`ranging from reality television to branded content movies.”
`
`15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shavon Sullivan Wright is a New Jersey resident
`
`who resides in the State of New Jersey.
`
`16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cherisse Parks is a Pittsburgh resident who resides
`
`in the State of Pennsylvania.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 98
`
`17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Patrick Schumacker is a California resident who
`
`resides in Los Angeles, California.
`
`18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Justin Halpern is a California resident who resides
`
`in Los Angeles, California.
`
`19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Quinta Brunson is a California resident who
`
`resides in Los Angeles, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1332 and 1338(a).
`
`21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because Defendants have
`
`conducted business in the State of New York and purposefully availed themselves of the
`
`benefits and laws of the State of New York.
`
`22. Upon information and belief, examples of Defendants ABC, Brunson, Schumaker and
`
`Halpern conducting business in the State of New York and purposefully availing
`
`themselves of the benefits and laws of the State of New York include producing, marketing,
`
`promoting, selling, and streaming the Abbott Elementary television series throughout the
`
`State of New York.
`
`23. Upon information and belief, examples of Defendant BPP conducting business in New
`
`York include “the creation and production of over 10,000 hours of programming for
`
`network television.” (See BPP Mission Statement attached hereto as Exhibit A). attached
`
`hereto.
`
`24. Upon information and belief, examples of Defendant Wright conducting business in New
`
`York include producing multiple television shows for network television including for
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 5 of 98
`
`Defendant ABC, along with Hulu, Starz, Netflix and many others. (See Defendant Wright’s
`
`Work Credits attached hereto as Exhibit B).
`
`25. Upon information and belief, examples of Defendant Parks conducting business in New
`
`York include producing television shows for BET, NBC, CBS, MTV, ABC and others.
`
`(See Defendant Parks Work Credits attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
`
`26. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(a).
`
`FACTS
`
`A. Ms. Davis Created and Owns the Copyrighted Works.
`
`27. Plaintiff is a rising Jamaican American writer, actor and performer in NYC. Plaintiff is also
`
`a licensed New York City School teacher. She has been working in education for over
`
`seven years and is entering her eighth year of teaching in the New York City public school
`
`system.
`
`28. Plaintiff comes from a family of teachers. Four of them are veteran teachers each with over
`
`15 years of experience. The dedication of her family members inspired Plaintiff as a teacher
`
`and as a writer and was the primary motivation for creating TSY.
`
`29. The lead character in TSY, Ms. Camille Davis is named after Plaintiff’s cousin who inspired
`
`Plaintiff and pushed her to become a teacher after she volunteered in her cousin’s
`
`classroom.
`
`30. Plaintiff created This School Year based on her experience as a licensed New York City
`
`school teacher.
`
`31. Many of the show’s elements, characters, plot lines and scenarios come directly from her
`
`daily teaching experiences and encounters with other teachers, her school’s administration,
`
`and her students.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 6 of 98
`
`32. In addition to teaching, Plaintiff, is, and has been for many years, a step coach. She teaches
`
`children how to perform and execute complicated step routines. This aspect of the
`
`Plaintiff’s life was co-opted by defendants into the story lines of Abbott Elementary who
`
`placed a step coach story line for the lead character into their show.
`
`33. Ms. Davis created This School Year (TSY) in 2018 and registered it on March 6, 2020, with
`
`the United States Copyright Office under Copyright Registration No. PAu004020233: (the
`
`“Copyrighted Works” or “Works”).
`
`34. Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works are registered as a “Work of the Performing Arts.”
`
`35. Plaintiff also registered TSY with the Writers Guild of America (“WGA”) on March 6,
`
`2020, under Registrations ID No. 2044382. (See WGA Registration ID Summaries,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit D).
`
`B. There is a substantial similarity between Plaintiff’s This School Year
`and Defendants’ Abbott Elementary
`
`
`36. TSY is a television comedy set in New York City P.S. (public school) 311. In the pilot script
`
`created by Ms. Davis, the three lead characters are excited to commence their second year
`
`as teachers. Still ‘newbies,’ they are bright, witty, engaged and ambitious to perform their
`
`duties. However, upon arriving at the school they learn that there is a new principal.
`
`Shortly thereafter they discover that the new principal has blown a significant portion of
`
`the school budget to hire filmmakers to create a documentary of the school. This leads to
`
`TSY’s mockumentary, single-camera style.
`
`37. While the mockumentary style has been used in other television shows – most notably in
`
`the television series The Office – it had never been used to capture the unique characters
`
`and characteristics of a public elementary school.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 7 of 98
`
`38. There is constant tension in TSY between an oblivious, self-aggrandizing new principal
`
`who is convinced everything is going well while the new teachers – including the lead
`
`character, Ms. Davis – are left to struggle and face insurmountable daily difficulties while
`
`remaining dedicated to their profession. The principal insists that the school is well-
`
`controlled and that the teachers and students will adhere to her agenda. However, the
`
`teachers, staff and students have their own agenda, especially Ms. Davis, the main
`
`character.
`
`39. In TSY, the lead character, Ms. Davis, is a young, idealistic teacher hoping to get tenure for
`
`herself meanwhile battling to convince colleagues that the school needs to be reformed.
`
`40. The conflict between her passion and the powers that be is the core of TSY.
`
`41. For example, as Ms. Davis struggles with the paucity of support and supplies, the principal
`
`decides it is more important to spend the school funds to hire a film crew than it is to
`
`purchase books and school supplies.
`
`42. Likewise, in Abbott Elementary there is a constant tension between an oblivious, self-
`
`aggrandizing new principal – in one episode she uses school funds to create a banner with
`
`her image on it – while the new teachers are left to struggle and face daily challenges while
`
`they remain dedicated to their profession.
`
`43. The slug lines are identical. The plots are identical. The settings are identical except for the
`
`fact that Plaintiff’s inner-city school is in New York City (TSY) and the defendants’ inner-
`
`city school is in Philadelphia.
`
`44. When Plaintiff pitched her script to Defendant Blue Park Productions, she presented one
`
`plot where the new principal steals the lead character’s cherished desk, igniting a quest to
`
`Seek its return.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 8 of 98
`
`45. One of the main plot lines in the initial episode of Abbott Elementary, the new principal
`
`steals the lead character’s cherished classroom rug, also igniting a quest to get her rug
`
`returned.
`
`46. The main characters are also identical in tenor, tone and relationship to each other. The
`
`names are different but everything else about the characters is clearly lifted from Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted work.
`
`47. A listing of the numerous and substantial similarities between the Plaintiff’s TSY and
`
`Defendants’ Abbott Elementary is attached hereto as Exhibit E).
`
`C. The Defendants Had Access to Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work.
`
`48. In mid-June through July of 2020, the Plaintiff contacted Shavon Sullivan Wright and
`
`Cherisse Parks at Blue Park Productions Seeking a production company to assist in
`
`bringing her copyrighted show to market.
`
`49. Plaintiff had researched Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright and was excited by their
`
`mission statement, which was to “[e]ncourage and train the next generation of black female
`
`identifying creatives so they can develop unique projects and their own media production
`
`companies.”
`
`50. Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright told Plaintiff that BPP is an “incubator and facilitator
`
`for talented black women to sell their original ideas and series to television networks and
`
`streaming platforms.”
`
`51. Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright told Plaintiff that they had substantial experience
`
`programming for network television and had produced over 100 series for TV. Defendants
`
`Parks and Wright specifically told Plaintiff that they had “connections” with ABC and
`
`Hulu.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 9 of 98
`
`52. From their initial contact, Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright held themselves out to
`
`Plaintiff as professional producers who would work with her to help her develop her
`
`television show.
`
`53. On June 15, 2020, Defendant Wright sent a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to the
`
`Plaintiff for signature.
`
`54. On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff signed and returned the NDA to Defendant Wright.
`
`55. On June 15, 2020, under cover of separate email, Plaintiff emailed a copy of her script for
`
`TSY and the “story bible” to Defendant Wright.
`
`56. Over the course of the next month, the Plaintiff and Blue Park Productions had at least
`
`three meetings regarding Plaintiff’s script for TSY.
`
`57. On June 16, 2020, Defendant Wright acknowledged receipt of the script via email.
`
`58. On June 21, 2020, Defendant Wright wrote to Plaintiff telling her that they needed more
`
`time to read the script “in depth.”
`
`59. On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Defendants with updates to the script and story ideas
`
`for episodes.
`
`60. On July 12, 2020, Defendant Wright emailed the Plaintiff to set a meeting for that Friday.
`
`61. The meeting between Plaintiff and Defendants Park and Wright was held via Zoom on July
`
`12, 2020.
`
`62. Defendants Wright and Parks reiterated their excitement regarding Plaintiff’s script and
`
`story idea for TSY.
`
`63. Defendants Wright and Parks told the Plaintiff that they would be able to present her work
`
`to noteworthy television outlets including HULU, ABC, and others.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 10 of 98
`
`64. Defendants Wright and Parks repeatedly expressed that they had connections at HULU and
`
`were aware that HULU and ABC were looking for Black, female-led comedies.
`
`65. Defendants Wright and Parks gave Plaintiff “notes” on the script and promised that they
`
`would meet again after Plaintiff incorporated their notes and returned a revised script to
`
`them.
`
`66. Defendants Wright and Parks urged Plaintiff to make revisions quickly so that they could
`
`present her idea to these outlets during upcoming pitch season.1
`
`67. Plaintiff went straight to work incorporated the revisions and notes from Defendants
`
`Wright and Parks.
`
`68. Plaintiff sent the revised script to Blue Park Productions.
`
`69. Plaintiff waited for a response from Defendants Wright and Parks.
`
`70. To this day, Defendants Wright and Parks have never responded.
`
`71. It was during this time that upon information and belief, Defendants Wright, Parks and
`
`Blue Park Productions took Plaintiff’s script and storybook and presented TSY to their
`
`“connections” at HULU, ABC and others.
`
`72. In September 2020, just months after Plaintiff met with Defendants Wright and Parks,
`
`ABC committed to a “put pilot,” for a new, mockumentary style Black female lead
`
`comedy based on public school teachers struggling to manage their careers, their
`
`students, and the never-ending challenges of public-school administrators.
`
`73. In February of 2021, ABC gave the project an official pilot order and pre-production
`
`began follow by production of the pilot episode.
`
`74. In May 2021, ABC ordered the full season of the new project.
`
`
`1 The annual life cycle for network television includes a summer “pitch season” when creatives pitch ideas to
`networks and other outlets, followed by offers, pre-production and production of pilots.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 11 of 98
`
`75. On August 16, 2021, Defendants Delicious Non-Sequitur Productions and ABC
`
`Television commenced production on Abbott Elementary, a new, Black, female-led
`
`comedy with all the aforementioned similarities to Plaintiff’s script and story bible for
`
`TSY.
`
`D. Defendant Brunson’s Pitched her “Idea” for a TV Show After
`Plaintiff Met with Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright
`
`76. Defendant Brunson pitched the concept for Abbott Elementary (originally Harrity
`
`Elementary) to ABC in September of 2020 – 4 months after Plaintiff presented her script
`
`and story bible to Defendants BPP, Parks and Wright.
`
`77. Defendant Brunson has publicly stated that she did not a have script when she pitched the
`
`concept to ABC.
`
`78. Defendant Brunson states: “ABC was the one we wanted to sell to, and we sold it to ABC.
`
`After that [there] was more development, developing the pilot, because at that point all you
`
`have is your pitch document. I didn’t sell a pilot; I just sold the pitch.” (See Defendant
`
`Brunson’s Press Excerpt attached here to as Exhibit F).
`
`E. There is a Substantial Connection Between Defendants
`ABC Television and Defendants Wright and Parks.
`
`
`79. Defendant BPP advertises itself as a Black woman owned production company that whose
`
`mission is to “[e]ncourage and train the next generation of black female identifying
`
`creatives so they can develop unique projects and their own media production companies.”
`
`80. BPP is an “incubator and facilitator for talented black women to sell their original ideas
`
`and series to television networks and streaming platforms.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 12 of 98
`
`81. BPP claims that “our collective has over 100 years of combined experience. Together we
`
`have over 10,0000 hours of programming for major networks and produced over 100 series
`
`ranging from reality television to branded content movies.”
`
`82. Defendant Shavon Wright, who has refused to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
`
`is a television producer with substantial network television credits.
`
`83. After being served with Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant Wright shut down her website for
`
`BPP.
`
`84. Fortunately, Plaintiff had captured screen shots from BPP describing Defendants’ BPP,
`
`Parks and Wright’s Mission, History and Purpose enabling Plaintiff to present this
`
`evidence. (See Defendant BPP’s Mission Statement Attached hereto as Exhibits A supra).
`
`85. Defendant Wright’s credits include producing television shows in 2019 and 2020 for ABC
`
`TV and 2021 and 2022 for Hulu. (See Defendant Wrights Work Credits attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit B supra.)
`
`86. Defendant Parks has also produced numerous network television shows including for
`
`Defendant ABC TV. (See Defendant Parks’ Work Credits attached hereto as Exhibit C
`
`supra.)
`
`F. There is a Strong Connection Between Defendants
`Brunson and Defendant Wright
`
`87. Defendant Quinta Brunson worked as a full-time employee at Buzzfeed from 2014 until
`
`2018 where she “wrote, produced and starred in many sketches.” (See Exhibit G attached
`
`hereto).
`
`88. Defendant Wright also had a substantial role at Buzzfeed during this time. In 2017, she was
`
`production coordinator for a full season where she “Created a 3.1 million budget for the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 13 of 98
`
`Netflix series In the Know.” She “Collaborated with Buzzfeed executives to launch weekly
`
`serialized show.” (See Exhibit G attached hereto).
`
`89. Furthermore, Defendants Wright and Brunson are alumnae of the same alma mater: Temple
`
`University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
`
`G. Defendants Knowingly and Willfully Infringed
`Ms. Davis’s Copyrighted Work.
`
`90. In addition to the number of characters, storylines, and scenes that are strikingly and
`
`substantially similar, Defendants Abbott Elementary also copied the look and feel of the
`
`inner-city school, the mockumentary style, unique plot synopsis, set design and unique
`
`characters from the Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work without authorization or consent.
`
`91. Several scenes and lines in Abbott Elementary involve discrete, identical copying from
`
`Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work – any one of which clearly demonstrates that the Abbott
`
`Elementary scenes are direct copies of TSY.
`
`92. Plaintiff drew upon her own experiences as a teacher to create the pilot script and story
`
`bible for TSY. The depth, richness and authenticity of the characters and plot lines were
`
`drawn from her own life and professional experiences.
`
`93. One stunning example is that the Plaintiff is a long time “step coach.” Abbott Elementary
`
`stole this concept and created an episode where Defendant Brunson’s character claims that
`
`she is a step coach and teaches step to her children.
`
`94. There are numerous other examples of the striking similarity between the TSY and Abbott
`
`Elementary.
`
`95. One or two similarities could be coincidence but the number and depth of similarities
`
`between Plaintiff’s copyrighted work and the series Defendants television series can only
`
`be deliberate.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 14 of 98
`
`96. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the synopsis and first episode breakdown of
`
`Plaintiff’s script for TSY and Defendants Abbott Elementary synopsis where one can See
`
`the substantial and striking similarities between the two works.
`
`97. The similarities between Plaintiff’s copyrighted work and Defendants’ Abbott Elementary
`
`are even more striking when one reviews the initial concept pitched by Defendant Brunson
`
`to Defendant ABC.
`
`98. Defendant Brunson’s original script was titled Harrity Elementary. Defendant Brunson
`
`submitted a script and a synopsis of Harrity Elementary to Defendant ABC.
`
`99. The synopsis for Harrity Elementary is even closer to Plaintiff’s copyright work.
`
`100.
`
`Harrity Elementary “follows a group of teachers brought together in one of the
`
`worst public schools in the country simply because they love teaching. They will relay on
`
`one another to make it through the day and find a way to counteract the school district’s
`
`bullsh*t attitude towards educating children.” (See copy of the Harrity Synopsis attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit I).
`
`COUNT I
`(Defendants’ infringement of Copyright
`Registration No. PAu004020233)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the assertions contained in the paragraphs above.
`
`Plaintiff owns all rights, title, and interest in and to Plaintiff’s U.S. Copyright
`
`101.
`
`102.
`
`Registration No. PAu004020233 (“PAu004020233”).
`
`103.
`
`Defendants, without permission, license, authorization, or consent from Plaintiff,
`
`have copied, sold, distributed, advertised and streamed and are currently copying, selling,
`
`distributing, advertising, and streaming Abbott Elementary, which is strikingly and
`
`substantially similar to, and based upon, PAu004020233.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 15 of 98
`
`104.
`
`With knowledge of Plaintiff’s Copyright Work PAu004020233. Defendants have
`
`rendered substantial assistance to each other’s acts of infringement as described above and
`
`are each thus jointly and severally liable for the infringement of PAu004020233.
`
`105.
`
`106.
`
`Defendants have thereby knowingly infringed PAu004020233.
`
`Defendants’ infringing acts were committed with knowledge or in reckless
`
`disregard of Plaintiff’s rights in PAu004020233 under the Copyright Act.
`
`107.
`
`The aforementioned acts by Defendants have damaged and, if not enjoined, will
`
`continue to damage Plaintiff, and cause irreparable harm for which Plaintiff has no
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`108.
`
`Plaintiff is thus entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
`
`17 U.S.C. § 502 prohibiting Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights, including
`
`but not limited to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from (a) imitating, copying, or
`
`making any unauthorized use of PAu004020233in any manner, and from publishing,
`
`distribution, selling, marketing, building, or otherwise disposing of any copies of
`
`PAu004020233, and for making any derivative works of PAu004020233 in the form of a
`
`second series or otherwise; (b) manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling
`
`offering for sale, advertising, promoting, or displaying any copy or colorable imitation of
`
`Plaintiff’s registered copyright PAu004020233; and (c) using any simulation,
`
`reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
`
`imitation of Plaintiff’s copyright
`
`PAu004020233, in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering
`
`for sale, manufacture, production, distribution, circulation or distribution of any product or
`
`service.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 16 of 98
`
`109.
`
`Defendants’ intentional and unlawful copying of PAu004020233 has allowed them
`
`to receive profits and gains to which they are not entitled.
`
`110.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have made substantial profits and gains
`
`from Abbott Elementary that they are not entitled to retain.
`
`111.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants all damages Plaintiff has and may
`
`later sustain due to Defendants’ improper conduct copying of PAu004020233, or statutory
`
`fees at Plaintiff’s election, in an amount to be proven at trial, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`112.
`
`The actions of Defendants have been willful and deliberate and justify an award of
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`113.
`
`Plaintiff is also Seeking public acknowledgement of her original story idea and
`
`writing and creator credit for her work.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`a. Enter judgement that Defendants have infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted works;
`
`b. Direct Defendants to pay Plaintiff such damages as the jury determines Plaintiff has
`
`sustained in consequence of Defendants’ infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights, and to
`
`account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants by their
`
`infringements of Plaintiff’s copyrights under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), or at Plaintiff’s
`
`election, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c);
`
`c. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, directors, agents,
`
`partners, employees and related companies, and all persons acting for, with, by,
`
`through, or under them, from copying streaming, reproducing, distributing, advertising,
`
`promoting, offering for sale, or selling Abbott Elementary or any other work
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 17 of 98
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 17 of 98
`
`substantially similar to the Copyrighted Work,
`
`including production, publication,
`
`distribution, sale, and/or marketing of a second “Abbott Elementary” series;
`
`d. Order Defendants to deliver up to be impounded during the pendency of this lawsuit
`
`under 17 U.S.C. § 503 all copies of the Copyrighted Works in Defendants’ possession
`
`or under Defendants’ control and to deliver up for destruction all infringing copies,
`
`including but not limited to the immediate ceasing of any Abbott Elementary streaming
`
`on any streaming platform;
`
`e. Direct Defendants to pay Plaintiff costs of this lawsuit and her reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees allowable to her by the Court under 17 U.S.C. § 505;
`
`f. Award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may consider appropriate;
`
`and
`
`g. Plaintiff requests a jury trial as to all matters other than the equitable remedies sought
`
`herein.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 31‘ day of March 2023.
`
`
`
`565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 721
`New York, New York 10017
`Telephone: (646) 922-8900
`Facsimile: (212) 672-1131
`wjt@thompsonlawnyc.com
`Counselfor the Plaintiff Christine Davis
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 18 of 98
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Safari
`
`
`
`
`
`<
`
`File
`
`Edit
`
`O@Oéoe 995
`
`i]
`
`ow
`
`Mm x
`
`S
`
`Our Mission
`
`Our mission is to encourage and train the next generation of black female
`identifying creatives so they can develop unique projects and their own media
`production companies.
`
`Blue Park is an incubatorandfacilitator for talented black womento sell their
`
`BLUE PARK PRODUCTIONS MISSION STATEMENT
`
`View History
`Bookmarks Window Help
`Gd
`Tue 4:36PM ChristineDavis Q @
`blueparkproductions.com
`fh
`Soo
`
` | 98% Ba
`= BP About —...
`
`
`original ideas andseries to television networks and streaming platforms. Our
`collective has over 100 years of combined experience. Together we have over
`10,000 hours of programming for major networks and produced over 100
`series ranging from reality television to branded content movies.
`
`
`
`Shavon Sullivan Wrightis the CEO and founderofBlue Park Productions.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 19 of 98
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`SHAVON WRIGHT WORK CREDITS (partial)
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 20 of 98
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`CHERISSE PARKS WORK CREDITS (partial)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 21 of 98
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`PLAINTIFF’S WGA AND COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION RECEIPTS
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 22 of 98
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`PLAINTIFF’S WGA AND COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION RECEIPTS
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-05944-KPF Document 56 Filed 04/12/23 Page 23 of 98
`
`EXHBIT E
`
`Substantial Similarities
`Plot, Characters, Dialogue, Setting and Theme
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Both works have young, African American, female, lead characters who are enthusiastic
`about teaching but frustrated by the system.
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In This School Year, the lead character is Ms. Davis: “Hi, my name is Camille
`Davis and I’m a second-year teacher. Last year was quite the journey for me but
`I’m back another year stronger and wiser…I’m looking forward to growth and
`success with our students. I’m excited to be teaching social studies again.
`
`In Abbott Elementary, the lead character is Ms. Teagues: “I'm Janine Teagues.
`I've been teaching second grade here at Abbott Elementary for a year now. And as
`a product of the Philadelphia school system, I'm proud to say I survived and now
`teach here today.”
`
`In both works, the main characters use nearly identical speeches to express their
`2.
`frustration and their optimism about teaching in a challenging inner-city school.
`
`
`•
`
`In This School Year, Ms. Davis says, “You know I love the kids. Last year was
`rough, but I’m feeling optimistic about This School Year.”
`
`In Abbott Elementary, Ms. Teagues mimics her frustration and hopefulness,
`“Look, I know this school is rough, but I became a teacher to make sure students
`come out alive. And after learning a lot in my first year, I finally feel on top of
`things.”
`
`In both works, the lead characters are step coaches. Not chess club, not cheerleading, not
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
