Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 24, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter can be heard in Department 31 of the above-entitled Court, located at 111 N. Hill Street,
5 MILLER and LEAH YERUSHALAIM (“Defendants”) will, and hereby do, move the Court for an
8 This Motion is made on the ground that the Complaint’s allegation that Defendants
9 misappropriated the Plaintiff’s work necessarily arises from the Defendants’ acts in furtherance of
10 their constitutional rights of petition and speech, triggering the protections of Code of Civil
11 Procedure section 425.16. Further, this allegation is entirely without merit and lacking of any
12 evidentiary support and Plaintiff cannot sustain his burden of demonstrating a probability of
14 This motion is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
15 Declarations of Andrew Miller and Leah Yerushalaim and all papers, records, and documents on
16 file in this action; and such evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of the motion.
17
18 DATED: May 21, 2019 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
19
20
By:
21 Craig Holden
Attorneys for Defendants Creative Artists Agency,
22 LLC, Andrew Miller & Leah Yerushalaim
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 2 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Cases
6 Cross v. Cooper,
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357 ................................................................................................. 7
7
Daniel v. Wayans,
8 (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 367 ................................................................................................... 6
9 Desny v. Wilder,
(1956) 46 Cal.2d 715 ............................................................................................................ 8
10
Doe v. City of Los Angeles,
11 (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 531........................................................................................................ 12
24 Navellier v. Sletten,
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 82......................................................................................................... 3, 4
25
Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,
26 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 ............................................................................................... 7
4 Sarver v. Chartier,
(9th Cir. 2016) 813 F.3d 891 ................................................................................................ 4
5
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
6 (2002) , 97 Cal.App.4th 798 ................................................................................................. 7
7 Sheley v. Harrop,
(2017) 9 Cal. App. 5th 1147 ................................................................................................. 4
8
Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
9 (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 172 ............................................................................................ 9, 12
10 Symmonds v. Mahoney,
(2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 1096 ............................................................................................... 6
11
Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.,
12 (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133 ..................................................................................... 4, 5, 6, 7
16
Statutes
17
18
Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. ......................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
19
Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(a) ............................................................................................................. 3
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 2 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Artists Agency, LLC (“CAA”), Andrew Miller (“Miller”) and Leah Yerushalaim (“Yerushalaim”)
5 the allegation that forms the basis of a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and should
6 be stricken. Here, Plaintiff seeks to impose liability based on Defendants’ alleged conduct in
8 creating a television show. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the ambit of Code of Civil
11 of prevailing on the merits of this claim. Plaintiff cannot meet this burden because he cannot
12 prove that those who created the alleged infringing television show had access to his script, and in
13 any event moving parties can conclusively establish the independent creation of that show.
14 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this motion.
17 and Yerushalaim beginning in June of 2014. Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 15, 16. Plaintiff’s Complaint
18 consists of two main grievances: the first is that Defendants failed to provide satisfactory services
19 as his agents. The second is that Defendants misappropriated one of his creative works; a
20 television concept called Main Justice. This Special Motion to Strike is grounded in Plaintiff’s
22 Plaintiff alleges, generally, that he wrote a television pilot for a legal drama series about
23 the United States Attorney General, and the Department of Justice, titled Main Justice. Id. at ¶ 22.
24 Plaintiff states that he provided this script to CAA agents Miller and Yerushalaim to assist in
25 refining the work and to pitch the concept to production companies, in the hopes that it might be
26 bought and developed into a television show. Id. at ¶ 23. The script was in fact “shopped” around
27 to various production houses and used as a writing sample to obtain work for Plaintiff as a writer;
28 indeed, a prominent Emmy Award winning production company, The Mark Gordon Company,
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 1 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 obtained a one year option to develop and purchase the rights to Main Justice. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 25, 32.
2 The Plaintiff states, however, that the Mark Gordon Company did not ultimately choose to
3 develop the show and the option expired in June of 2017. Id. at ¶ 36.
4 Later, the Plaintiff alleges a television show, also about the Attorney General and the
5 United States Justice Department, was developed by a different CAA client, producer Jerry
6 Bruckheimer. Id. at ¶ 37. Bruckheimer’s show was written by a different CAA client named
7 Sascha Penn (“Penn”) in coordination with former United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Id.
8 at ¶ 37. The Plaintiff goes on to allege, on information and belief, that his Main Justice concept
9 was taken by Miller and shared with Penn, who “harvested” Musero’s work in order to create his
10 own version of the show – essentially copying Musero’s work as their own. Id. at ¶¶ 37-48.
11 Plaintiff also alleges “upon information and belief” that Miller “personally initiated the
12 development of Bruckheimer’s Main Justice with his client [writer] Penn, and his other client
13 Bruckheimer TV” and that Miller “created a pitch document which was used to sell Bruckheimer’s
14 Main Justice to CBS.” Id. at ¶¶ 41 and 43 (emphasis added). The Plaintiff alleges that all three
15 Defendants “work[ed] on Bruckheimer’s Main Justice pilot…” and that they “profited
16 significantly” for such work. Id. at ¶ 47. Plaintiff alleges that all three Defendants
17 misappropriated “Plaintiff’s original and creative work in Main Justice, developing it with
18 producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Bruckheimer TV and writer Penn…” Id. at ¶ 77. In so alleging, the
19 Plaintiff has made clear that the gravamen of this lawsuit is grounded in the Defendants’ role in
25 infringe upon the valid exercise of constitutional rights. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle
3 Section 425.16 was amended in January 1997 to resolve conflicting interpretations of the
4 statute issued by the appellate courts. The Legislature stated that henceforth the statute “shall be
7 process. First, the court decides whether the moving party has made a threshold showing that the
8 challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity, i.e., whether the activity fits one
9 of the four categories enumerated at §425.16(e). (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.)
10 Once the moving party establishes that the lawsuit arises from protected activity, the burden shifts
11 to plaintiff to show through competent evidence a probability that he will succeed on his claim.
12 (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777; C.C.P. §425.16(a).)
14 Cause of Action.
15 “[T]he Legislature's choice of the term ‘motion to strike’ reflects the understanding that an
16 anti-SLAPP motion, like a conventional motion to strike, may be used to attack parts of a
17 count as pleaded.” Baral v. Schnitt, (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376, 393 (emphasis added); see also
18 Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc., (2017) 859 F.3d 1184, fn. 4 (“An Anti-SLAPP
19 motion may strike distinct claims within a cause of action, even if it the entire cause of action
21 Here, Defendants seek not to strike the entirety of the Complaint, but merely to strike
22 Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants’ misappropriated his work, utilized his creative ideas to
23 create a television show, or allegedly breached a fiduciary duty by doing any of these acts.
25 Importantly, the nomenclature of the cause of action is irrelevant to the analysis of whether
26 a cause of action – or any individual claim therein - is subject to anti-SLAPP; if a claim arises
27 from conduct in furtherance of free speech, it falls within the scope of the statute regardless of its
28 label. See, e.g., Navellier v. Sletten, (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 91 (SLAPP statute’s “definitional focus
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 3 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 is not the form of the plaintiff’s cause of action, but rather, the defendant’s activity that gives rise
2 to his or her asserted liability”). As the California Supreme Court held in Navellier, claims for
3 breach of contract “are not categorically excluded from the operation of the anti-SLAPP statute
5 Thus, instead of focusing on the name given to the cause of action by Plaintiff, “[w]e must
6 determine whether the claim actually arises from protected activity. Sheley v. Harrop, (2017) 9
7 Cal. App. 5th 1147, 1167 (citing Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
11 “To prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the defendant must first make a prima facie
12 showing that the plaintiff's suit arises from an act in furtherance of the defendant's rights of
13 petition or free speech. An ‘act in furtherance’ includes, among other things, ‘conduct in
14 furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free
15 speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.’" Jordan-Benel v. Universal
16 City Studios, Inc., (9th Cir. 2017) 859 F.3d 1184 (citing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4)).
17 Here, the activities underlying Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants were their
18 communications in connection with the development and subsequent sale of the unrelated Main
19 Justice project ; these actions, according to Plaintiff, “conferred a significant economic benefit to
20 CAA, Miller and Yerushalaim.” See Complaint, ¶ 77. Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants
21 misappropriated his work confirms that the alleged conduct underlying all three causes of action
23 protected activity. See, e.g, Tamkin v. CBS Broad., Inc., (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 143
24 (creation of television show a protected activity); Sarver v. Chartier, (9th Cir. 2016) 813 F.3d 891,
25 901-902 (creation/distribution of fictional film a protected activity); Doe v. Gangland Prods., (9th
26 Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 946, 954-955 (creation/broadcast of television program a protected activity);
27 Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, (9th Cir. 2010) 599 F.3d 894,904 (distribution of greeting cards a
28 protected activity); Alexander v. AETN, LLC, (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 4 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 99913 (broadcast of television program a protected activity); M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc., (2001) 89
2 Cal.App.4th 623 (broadcast of HBO program and publication of magazine article a protected
3 activity).
4 In Wilder v. CBS Corp., the plaintiff, Angela Wilder, alleged that CBS stole her idea for a
5 daytime talk show. Wilder v. CBS Corp, (C.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190059 . Wilder
6 alleged that she pitched to CBS a “one-hour daily talk show dedicated solely to the interests of
7 mothers and the myriad issues of motherhood, to be taped in front of a live audience.” Id. at pg. 3.
8 Two years after CBS declined to produce Wilder’s show, CBS aired The Talk, “a show dedicated
9 to motherhood and the issues faced by mothers in their everyday lives.” Id. Wilder alleged that
10 "The Talk" has a number of remarkable similarities to the [Wilder’s pitch], including the subject
12 CBS filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the Complaint. The Court ultimately found
13 “[u]nder California law, the actions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims against the CBS Defendants—
14 the production and distribution of "The Talk"—are clearly ‘in furtherance’ of the right to free
15 speech.” Id. at pg. 32. The Court then found the television show to be “an issue of public interest”
16 and moved on to the second prong of the two part anti-SLAPP test (whether Wilder established a
18 In Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., the California Court of Appeal considered a case
19 brought by plaintiffs, Scott and Melinda Tamkin, who alleged that CBS utilized their names and
20 likenesses in a defamatory manner in the creation the show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.
21 Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint
22 alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. Id. at 139. In response, CBS filed an anti-SLAPP
23 motion to strike the Complaint, arguing that the production of CSI is a protected activity.
24 The Court in Tamkin ultimately concluded “that defendants' conduct here arose from
25 protected activities because defendants' acts were in furtherance of the exercise of their right of
26 free speech in connection with an issue of public interest. . . . defendants demonstrated that their
27 challenged conduct was in furtherance of the creative process of developing and broadcasting
28 CSI.” Id. at 144. The Court found that where “defendants' acts helped to advance or assist in the
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 5 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 creation, casting, and broadcasting of an episode of a popular television show,” those acts are “in
2 furtherance of the exercise of the right of free speech.” Id. at 143. Finally, the Court found that
3 “the creation and broadcasting of CSI episode 913 is an issue of public interest . . .” Id.
4 Tamkin and Wilder are not unique. Far more recently, in February of 2019, our Second
5 District Court of Appeal approved of Tamkin and extended the concept further by finding a
6 “singer's selection of the musicians that play with him both advances and assists the performance
7 of the music, and therefore is an act in furtherance of his exercise of the right of free speech.”
8 Symmonds v. Mahoney, (2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 1096, 1106. In Daniel v. Wayans, (2017) 8 Cal.
9 App. 5th 367, 382, the Court found “all of the alleged misconduct is based squarely on Wayans's
10 exercise of free speech—the creation and promotion of a full-length motion picture, including
13 Main Justice, by “developing [the script] with producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Bruckheimer TV and
14 writer Penn, selling it to CBS, conferring a significant economic benefit to CAA, Miller and
15 Yerushalaim.” Complaint, ¶ 77. This alleged fact pattern is identical to the situation in Wilder,
16 where Wilder accused CBS of stealing her idea for the show “The Talk.” There, the Court found
17 “the production and distribution of ‘The Talk’—are clearly ‘in furtherance’ of the right to free
18 speech.” Wilder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190059, *32. Likewise, this Court must find that the
19 production and sale of Main Justice was ‘in furtherance’ of Defendants’ right to free speech.
20 Further, as in Tamkin, Defendants’ acts are alleged to “have helped to advance or assist in
21 the creation, casting, and broadcasting of an episode of” a television show, produced by a wildly
22 prolific and successful producer. Tamkin, 193 Cal.App.4th at 143. As in Daniels, the allegation of
23 misappropriation stems “the creation and promotion of a” television show, “ including the off-
24 camera creative process.” Daniels, 8 Cal. App. 5th at 382. Last, as in Symmonds, the selection of
25 creative team to produce the show is likewise an exercise of the right to free speech. Symmonds 31
3 The “public interest” requirement, “like all of section 425.16, is to be construed broadly
4 …” Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002), 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 808. An issue of public
5 interest has been broadly defined as “any issue in which the public is interested,” and “need not be
6 ‘significant’ to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute ….” Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, (2008)
7 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042; Cross v. Cooper, (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 372-373 (same). As
8 was held in applying the statute to a greeting card, “the activity of the defendant need not involve
9 questions of civic concern; social or even low-brow topics may suffice ….” Hilton v. Hallmark
11 This broad standard is easily met here. As widely disseminated expressive works,
12 television shows themselves are matters of public interest. See, e.g., Tamkin v. CBS Broad., Inc.,
13 (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 143 (popularity of television program showed public was
14 “demonstrably interested in the creation and broadcasting of that episode” for the purposes of
16 it was of “significant interest”). Similarly, this show was being produced by a successful, prolific
17 and popular producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, and had been approved for production of a one-hour
19 Moreover, the topics addressed in Main Justice involve social and cultural issues of
20 interest to the public. Main Justice takes place at the United States Department of Justice, where
21 characters tackle real-world legal issues, topics and dilemmas, essentially ripping drama “from the
22 headlines.” Indeed, even the title Main Justice itself is derived from the nickname given to the
23 main building which houses the Justice Department and its subservient investigative bureaus. The
24 broad topics of Main Justice easily satisfy the “public interest” requirement.
25 Because the alleged appropriation of Main Justice by Defendants necessarily touches upon
26 a protected activity in connection with a matter of public interest, the first prong of the anti-
27 SLAPP examination is clearly satisfied.
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 7 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 F. Plaintiff Cannot Establish A Probability Of Prevailing Against Defendants.
2 Because Plaintiff’s claims satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, the burden
3 shifts to Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved at trial, support a
4 judgment in his favor. Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 141, 159.
5 Here, Plaintiff must identify facts that would, if proved at trial, support a finding that defendants
6 appropriated his work as their own in the creation of Bruckheimer’s Main Justice. That necessarily
7 means (1) that a Desny claim was created between the named Defendants and the Plaintiff,
8 whereby the Defendants would pay Plaintiff the fair value for the Defendants’ use of his work, or
9 (2) even if Plaintiff had a direct action against the Defendants, they would be obligated to prove
10 that the Defendants utilized Plaintiff’s Main Justice concept in creating the allegedly infringing
11 television series, or, while still insufficient to support a cause of action, at least (3) that Defendants
12 somehow relayed the Plaintiff’s creative or original work to Penn who then utilized the concept
15 In the absence of an actionable copyright claim, the law does not afford any property right
16 in an idea. Desny v. Wilder, (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 731-732. California’s Supreme Court,
17 however, has recognized that there may, under limited circumstances, be either an express or
18 implied contract concerning the defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s idea. Id. at 733-734. Under this
19 narrow exception, a plaintiff’s initial disclosure of an idea can serve as consideration for a
20 defendant’s promise of payment for that idea if used. Id. at 733 (“That disclosure may therefore
21 be consideration for a promise to pay .. . .”); Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., (9th Cir. 2004) 383
22 F.3d 965, 967. A Desny implied contract “is justified on the theory that the bargain is not for the
23 idea itself, but for the services of conveying that idea.” Grosso, 383 F.3d at 967; Desny, 46
24 Cal.2d at. at 737-38 (“[C]onveyance of an idea can constitute valuable consideration and can be
25 bargained for before it is disclosed to the proposed purchaser, but once it is conveyed, i.e.,
26 disclosed to him and he has grasped it, it is henceforth his own and he may work with it and use it
27 as he sees fit.”). Thus, an implied contract may exist where there is a mutual understanding that
28 the plaintiff will be compensated if the defendant uses the plaintiff’s idea. See Desny, 46 Cal.2d at
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 8 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 739.
2 Here, the Plaintiff cannot provide any evidence to support his proposition that the named
3 Defendants in this action – his talent agents – agreed to pay the Plaintiff the fair value for the use
4 of his idea. Nor can the Plaintiff possibly provide any evidence to show that the named Defendants
5 used his idea to produce their own creative work, i.e., Bruckheimer/Penn’s Main Justice. Plaintiff
6 has not alleged such an agreement as this was clearly not their mutual intent.
8 Main Justice.
9 “When the plaintiffs do not have direct evidence of use, they may raise an inference of use
10 by showing the defendants had access to their ideas and the defendants' work is substantially
11 similar to the plaintiffs' ideas.” Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., (2013) 215
12 Cal.App.4th 172, 184-85 (citing Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.
13 (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 631, 646. Importantly, “[e]ven when the plaintiffs raise an inference of
14 use, however, the defendants may dispel that inference with evidence that conclusively
16 In Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th
17 631, the Court considered a case wherein the Plaintiff alleged that he pitched a television show
18 idea to NBC Universal, who ultimately rejected the idea. Screentest, 151 Cal.App.4th at 635. One
19 year later, NBC released a television show with marked similarities to the show pitched by the
20 plaintiff. Id. at 636. The plaintiff sued, alleging NBC misappropriated his concept and NBC filed a
21 Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the trial court to find as a matter of law that the NBC show
22 was a creation independent of the plaintiff. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion.
23 Id. at 641.
24 In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeal noted that NBC produced three
25 declarations describing how the show was created, without any input from the plaintiff. The
26 plaintiff, on the other hand, had “point[ed] to no evidence that NBC actually used” his ideas. Id. at
27 648. Rather, he asked the court to “draw inferences based on general similarities and timing,” and
28 he argued that a fact question existed as to whether the NBC show was independently created
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 9 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 because of the “numerous similarities” between the shows and the timing of the show’s
2 production. Id. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s “speculation as to NBC's use is insufficient
3 to create a disputed issue of fact. An inference of use sufficient to challenge NBC's ‘clear, positive
4 and uncontradicted evidence’ of independent creation may not be drawn from ‘suspicion alone, or
6 Here, all Plaintiff has is suspicion, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture and guess
7 work. Plaintiff alleges blindly that Miller worked with Penn to copy his work and appropriate his
8 television series concept as their own without any real evidence. In truth, Penn’s show was created
9 separately from Musero, and Miller, Yerushaliam and CAA played no role in its development.
11 The burden shifts to Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved
12 at trial, support a judgment in his favor against Leah Yerushalaim. Ms. Yerushalaim has never
13 met, nor spoken to writer Sascha Penn. Declaration of Leah Yerushalaim, ¶ 3. Ms. Yerushalaim
14 has never provided Sascha Penn with any of Mr. Musero’s creative or original work, including his
15 script, concept, pitch, series overview or pilot, for the Plaintiff’s “Main Justice” concept.
16 Declaration of Leah Yerushalaim. at ¶ 4. Ms. Yerushalaim has never instructed anyone to provide
17 the Plaintiff’s creative or original work to Mr. Penn. Id. ¶ 6. And, Ms. Yerushalaim played no role,
18 and had no involvement, in the creation or sale of Sascha Penn/Bruckheimer’s Main Justice pilot.
19 Id. ¶ 9.
20 Thus, the Plaintiff cannot make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved at
21 trial, support a finding that Ms. Yerushalaim misappropriated his work. Ms. Yerushalaim simply
22 had nothing to do with the creation or sale of Penn/Bruckheimer’s Main Justice. She has never
23 even met or spoken to its writer/creator, Sacsha Penn. It is therefore impossible for the Plaintiff to
24 satisfy his burden, and thus the allegation of misappropriation against Ms. Yerushalaim should be
25 stricken.
27 The burden shifts to Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved
28 at trial, support a judgment in his favor against Andrew Miller. Mr. Miller has never provided the
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 10 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 script, concept, pitch, series overview or pilot, for Musero’s show, titled Main Justice, to Sascha
2 Penn, nor has he instructed anyone to do so. Declaration of Andrew Miller, ¶¶ 3, 6. Mr. Miller has
4 Thus, the Plaintiff cannot make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved at
5 trial, support a finding that Mr. Miller misappropriated his work. Mr. Miller did not share any of
6 Mr. Musero’s original or creative work with Mr. Penn, and Mr. Miller’s role in the development
7 and sale of Mr. Penn’s Main Justice did not come about until well after the idea was formulated.
8 It is therefore impossible for the Plaintiff to satisfy his burden, and thus the allegation of
10 (c) CAA
11 The burden shifts to Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved
12 at trial, support a judgment in his favor against CAA. Leah Yerushalaim has never interacted with
13 Mr. Penn. Declaration of Leah Yerushalaim, ¶ 3. Andrew Miller has never discussed Mr. Musero
14 or his work with Mr. Penn. Declaration of Andrew Miller, ¶¶ 3, 7, 8. Mr. Miller did not become
15 involved in Mr. Penn’s efforts on Main Justice until after Mr. Penn approached him with the
16 concept. Id. ¶ 5.
17 Thus, the Plaintiff cannot make a prima facie showing of facts that would, if proved at
18 trial, support a finding that CAA misappropriated his work. The show was created and developed
19 entirely separately and distinctly from Mr. Musero’s concept. It is therefore impossible for the
20 Plaintiff to satisfy his burden, and thus the allegation of misappropriation against CAA should be
21 stricken.
24 The Plaintiff appears to assume that CAA was the source of the “leak” of his work to Penn,
25 Bruckheimer and the rest of the creative team responsible for creating Bruckheimer’s Main
26 Justice, even while acknowledging that he – not CAA - shared his script with the Dan Jinks
27 Company, a CBS Studios affiliate, and that Plaintiff “on his own accord” – not CAA – also
28 shopped Main Justice around to Robert Katz and Nick Pepper at The Mark Gordon Company.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 11 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 Complaint. at ¶¶ 24, 25. Despite acknowledging that the Plaintiff himself put Main Justice in the
2 hands of two studios, and therefore their potentially countless producers, writers, and employees,
3 “on information and belief,” the Plaintiff nevertheless alleges that it was Miller, alone, who shared
4 Main Justice with the individuals who would later go on to write a show about the United States
6 A cursory examination of the Plaintiff’s Complaint lays bare the lack of evidentiary
7 support for such a claim. The Plaintiff has nothing more than innuendo to link his creative work
8 with that of Bruckheimer. Musero’s premise is that “access” to his unpublished work is
9 established merely by alleging that it was sent to his agent at CAA, who also represented the
10 author of the allegedly infringing script. Importantly, while Musero claims that similarities exist
11 between his script and the infringing script, they clearly are not significant enough to rise to the
12 level of being “substantial” so that the similarities in expression would constitute copyright
13 infringement. Thus, these vaguely similar projects are alleged to have somehow passed from
15 In Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (2013), 215 Cal.App.4th 172 the
16 Court concluded that “[b]are ‘corporate receipt’ of the plaintiffs' work may not be sufficient to
17 show access. A reasonable possibility of access requires a sufficiently strong nexus between the
18 intermediary to whom the plaintiffs submitted their work and the creator of the allegedly offending
19 work. The relationship linking the intermediary and the creator should be more than the simple
20 fact that they share a common employer.” Spinner, 215 Cal.App.4th at 186.
21 Again, as discussed more fully above, Ms. Yerushalaim has never met, nor spoken to
22 writer Sascha Penn. Declaration of Leah Yerushalaim, ¶ 3. Ms. Yerushalaim has never provided
23 Sascha Penn with any of Mr. Musero’s creative or original work, including his script, concept,
24
1
25 Although pleading “on information and belief” is not improper, per se, it is proper only so long “as the pleading
gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.” Doe v. City of Los Angeles, (2007) 42 Cal. 4th
26 531, 549-550 (citing Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458). Further, facts pled upon information and
belief, without stating the basis for that belief, is improper. Id. at fn. 5; see also Pridonoff v. Balokovich, (1951) 36
27 Cal. 2d 788, 792 (Defendants must be “informed of the exact nature of the claim of special damages and afforded an
opportunity to prepare a defense against it. That is all that is required of the allegation.”).
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 12 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 pitch, series overview or pilot, for the Plaintiff’s “Main Justice” concept. Declaration of Leah
2 Yerushalaim. at ¶ 4. Ms. Yerushalaim has never instructed anyone to provide the Plaintiff’s
3 creative or original work to Mr. Penn. Id. ¶ 6. And, Ms. Yerushalaim played no role, and had no
4 involvement, in the creation or sale of Sascha Penn/Bruckheimer’s Main Justice pilot. Id. ¶ 9. Mr.
5 Miller has never provided the script, concept, pitch, series overview or pilot, for Musero’s show,
6 titled Main Justice, to Sascha Penn, nor has he instructed anyone to do so. Declaration of Andrew
7 Miller, ¶¶ 3, 6. Mr. Miller has never discussed Musero or his work with Sascha Penn. Id. at ¶¶ 7,
8 8.
9 Thus, there is simply no evidence that Sascha Penn, Jerry Bruckheimer, Bruckheimer TV,
10 Bruckheimer Productions, or any other entity or individual involved in the making of the Main
11 Justice series selected by CBS for production as a pilot, were in any way informed in their work
12 by John Musero or his script, concept, pilot, series overview or treatment. The burden shifts to the
13 Plaintiff to produce evidence supporting this claim, which the Plaintiff invariably cannot.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully urge the Court to grant their anti-
16 SLAPP motion, and remove any allegation regarding misappropriation from the pleadings. See
17 Baral, 1 Cal. 5th at 396 (“Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are
19
20 DATED: May 21, 2019 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
21
22
By:
23 Craig Holden
Attorneys for Defendants Creative Artists Agency,
24 LLC, Andrew Miller & Leah Yerushalaim
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4851-1390-1719.1 13 19STCV10435
& SMITH LLP Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike
ATTORNEYS AT LAW