Brittle V Time Warner MTD

Case 3:16-cv-00908-JAG Document 45 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 39 PageID# 2918
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
)
GERALD BRITTLE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 3:16-cv-00908
)
TIME WARNER, INC., et al., )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANTS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S AND

NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
I. Factual and Procedural Background ....................................................................... 1
A. Ed and Lorraine Warrens Life Work ......................................................... 1
B. The Demonologist Book ............................................................................. 2
C. Tony DeRosa-Grunds Involvement with the Warrens and New
Line ............................................................................................................. 3
D. Brittles Involvement in this Prior Litigation and His Related
Admissions.................................................................................................. 4
E. The Current Lawsuit ................................................................................... 5
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6
I. None Of The Conjuring Movies Infringes The Book (Counts I-III, VIII). ............ 6
A. Background Legal Principles ...................................................................... 6
B. None of the Conjuring-Related Movies Infringes the Book. ...................... 8
II. Brittles Claims Based On The Case Files And His Contracts All Fail As
Well, As They Misread The Agreements And Contravene His Prior
Admissions............................................................................................................ 19
III. Brittles State Law Claims (Counts IV-VII) Are Time Barred, Preempted,
And Run Afoul Of Californias Anti-SLAPP Statute. .......................................... 23
A. Governing Law. ........................................................................................ 23
B. Three of Brittles State-Law Claims Are Untimely. ................................. 24
C. All of Brittles State-Law Claims Are Preempted .................................... 25
D. Brittles Claims Run Afoul of Californias Anti-SLAPP statute .............. 26
IV. Brittles Lanham Act Claim (Count IX) Fails For Numerous Reasons. ............... 27
A. Brittles Lanham Act Claim Is Barred by the First Amendment. ............. 27
B. Brittles Lanham Act Claim Makes No Sense In Any Event, Given
The Book. .................................................................................................. 28
C. Brittles Authorship Claim is Precluded by Dastar. ................................. 29
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
ABLV Bank v. Ctr. for Advanced Def. Studies Inc.,
2015 WL 12517012 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2015) ................................................................. 24, 26
Acker v. King,
46 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D. Conn. 2014) ....................................................................................... 17
AdvanFort Co. v. International Registries, Inc.,
2015 WL 2238076 (E.D. Va. May 12, 2015) ........................................................................... 1
Alexander v. Haley,
460 F. Supp. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)........................................................................................ 7, 13
AmerUS Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
143 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2006) ................................................................................................. 24
Arora v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
2010 WL 2925178 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2010) ........................................................................... 4
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 6
Beaulieu Grp., LLC v. Mohawk Indus., Inc.,
2015 WL 11722814 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2015) ....................................................................... 29
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entmt, Inc.,
607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 8, 13
Berkic v. Crichton,
761 F.2d 1289 (1985) .............................................................................................................. 17
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co.,
145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 22
Braddock v. Jolie,
2013 WL 12125754 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013) ...................................................................... 12
Brown v. Flowers,
196 F. Appx 178 (4th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 6
Brown v. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entmt,
2015 WL 5081125 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 27, 2015)......................................................................... 17
Burroghs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
491 F. Supp. 1320 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)........................................................................................ 21
ii
(continued)
Page
C.A. Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc.,

579 F. Supp. 2d 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................................................... 26
Cannon v. Bettinger,
2009 WL 1594082 (Cal. Ct. App. June 9, 2009) .............................................................. 24, 26
Cobra Capital, LLC v. RF Nitro Commcns, Inc.,
266 F. Supp. 2d 432 (M.D.N.C. 2003) ................................................................................... 24
Comins v. Discovery Commcns, Inc.,
200 F. Supp. 2d 512 (D. Md. 2002) .............................................................................. 7, 12, 14
Copeland v. Bieber,
789 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 7
Crane v. Poetic Prods. Ltd.,
593 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................... 8, 12, 14
Darden v. Peters,
488 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 6, 20
Dastar Corp. v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
539 U.S. 23 (2003) ............................................................................................................ 29, 30
DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp.,
938 F. Supp. 2d 941 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................... 25
Design Res., Inc. v. Leather Indus. of Am.,
789 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 28
Devils Advocate, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,
666 F. Appx 256 (4th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 7
Eaton v. Natl Broad. Co.,
972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997) ............................................................................ 11, 12, 18
Edwards v. Raymond,
22 F. Supp. 3d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)............................................................................. 6, 11, 13
Effie Film, LLC v. Murphy,
932 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)........................................................................... 8, 11, 16
Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc.,
24 N.Y.3d 239 (Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................................. 21
iii
(continued)
Page
Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,

499 U.S. 340 (1991) ........................................................................................................ 7, 8, 11
Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings,
446 F. Supp. 725 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).......................................................................................... 23
Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.,
194 F.3d 505 (1999) ................................................................................................................ 27
Ford Motor Co. v. Natl Indem. Co.,
972 F. Supp. 2d 850 (E.D. Va. 2013) ............................................................................... 23, 25
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino,
89 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2011) ................................................................................................... 26
Friedman v. ITC Intl Television Corp.,
644 F. Supp. 46 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) ........................................................................................... 13
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entmt Co., L.P.,
462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 11
Gardner v. Nizer,
391 F. Supp. 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).......................................................................................... 12
Gifford v. U.S. Green Bldg. Council,
2011 WL 4343815 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) ........................................................................ 29
Golan v. Holder,
565 U.S. 302 (2012) ................................................................................................................ 13
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Nextday Network Hardware Corp.,
73 F. Supp. 3d 636 (D. Md. 2014) .......................................................................................... 24
Greenspan v. Random House, Inc.,
859 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Mass. 2012) ..................................................................................... 29
Groden v. Random House,
61 F.3d 1045 (2d Cir. 1995).................................................................................................... 27
Harbour v. Farquhar,
245 F. Appx 582 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 30
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
723 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1983).................................................................................................... 26
iv
(continued)
Page
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Rick Strategy Partners, Inc.,

2006 WL 5908727 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2006) .......................................................................... 25
Hoehling v. Universal Studios, Inc.,
618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980).................................................................................................... 12
Hogan v. DC Comics,
48 F. Supp. 2d 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)....................................................................................... 17
Houts v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
603 F. Supp. 26 (C.D. Cal. 1984) ....................................................................................... 9, 28
In re Hughes,
353 B.R. 486 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006) ................................................................................... 22
Jackson v. Michalski,
2011 WL 3679143 (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2011) ...................................................................... 30
Jones v. CBS, Inc.,
733 F. Supp. 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).......................................................................................... 18
Kashian v. Harriman,
98 Cal. App. 4th 892 (2002) ................................................................................................... 27
Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc.,
150 Cal. App. 4th 941 (2007) ................................................................................................. 26
Law Debenture Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Maverick Tube Corp.,
595 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2010).................................................................................................... 23
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entmt Inc.,
868 F. Supp. 2d 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)..................................................................................... 29
Magnussen Furniture, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc.,
116 F.3d 472, 1997 WL 337465 (4th Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 19
Maisha v. Univ. of N. Carolina,
641 F. Appx 246 (4th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 26
Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,
849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 22
Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers,
795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 26
v
(continued)
Page
Narell v. Freeman,
872 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................ 8, 11, 12
Nash v. CBS, Inc.,
691 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Ill. 1988) ....................................................................................... 9, 28
New York Times v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964) ................................................................................................................ 27
Novak v. Warner Bros. Pictures, LLC,
387 F. Appx 747 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 7, 12
Oliver v. Saint Germain Found.,
41 F. Supp. 296 (S.D. Cal. 1941) ...................................................................................... 10, 28
Olson v. Tenney,
466 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (D. Or. 2006) ....................................................................................... 12
PBM Prod., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 25
Randolph v. Dimension Films,
634 F. Supp. 2d 779 (S.D. Tex. 2009) .................................................................................... 17
Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC,
150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)..................................................................................... 21
Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan,
880 F. Supp. 2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)..................................................................................... 19
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim,
452 U.S. 61 (1981) .................................................................................................................. 27
Scharpenberg v. Carrington,
686 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2010) ..................................................................................... 26
Shame on You Prods. v. Banks,
120 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................. 13
Skaff v. Progress Intern., LLC,
2014 WL 856521 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014) ............................................................................ 20
Stromback v. New Line Cinema,
384 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 11
vi
(continued)
Page
Stutzman v. Armstrong,
2013 WL 4853333 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2013) ........................................................................ 27
Thompson v. Looneys Tavern Prods.,
204 F. Appx 844 (11th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 8
Towler v. Sayles,
76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................ 6, 7, 11
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., Inc.,
155 F. Supp. 2d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)......................................................................................... 17
U.S. ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala.,
104 F.3d 1453 (4th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 25
Wharton v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.,
907 F. Supp. 144 (D. Md. 1995) ............................................................................................. 26
Willis v. HBO,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17887 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2001 ......................................................... 17
Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Intl Ltd.,
780 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 6
STATUTES
17 U.S.C. 101 ............................................................................................................................. 22
17 U.S.C. 102 ............................................................................................................................. 25
17 U.S.C. 301 ............................................................................................................................. 25
17 U.S.C. 507 ............................................................................................................................. 25
CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 425.16 ................................................................................................... 26
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1 PATRY, COPYRIGHT LAW & PRACTICE (1994)............................................................................ 22
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) ................................................................................. 22
MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY (2017)...................................................................................... 22
vii
INTRODUCTION
Gerald Brittles latest lawsuitseeking some $1 billion for himself from The Conjuring
moviesis no more meritorious than the spate of other cases that he and Tony DeRosa-Grund
have brought against New Line and a range of other defendants over the past three years.
Among other infirmities, Brittles latest claims fail as a matter of copyright law, are time barred,
preempted by the Copyright Act, and contradicted by Brittles judicially noticeable admissions.
Brittles latest complaint is without merit and should be dismissed, with prejudice.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Ed and Lorraine Warrens Life Work
Ed and Lorraine Warren were paranormal investigators based in Connecticut, whose life
workinvestigating hauntings and working with church officials to exorcise demonsthe
media has covered for decades. The Warrens made their name in 1972 after investigating a
haunting at the Westpoint military academy, Decl. of Matt Kline (KD) Ex. Y, and their
Enfield investigation in England remains one of the most well-documented cases of its
kind, id. 40(b). News outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post have covered
the Warrens work for five decades, id. Exs. T, BB, and movies like The Exorcist (1973) and The
Amityville Horror (1979) popularized the sort of work the Warrens performed.1
The Warrens documented their life work in case files they kept, in photographs they took,
and in audio recordings they made. See Gerald Brittle, The Demonologist: The Extraordinary
Career of Ed & Lorraine Warren at ix-xi, 19-20, 67, 139-46 (Graymalkin Media 2013) (the
Book) (KD Ex. J). They also worked with a variety of collaborators to publicize their work.
1
The Court may take judicial notice of these news articles and other sources, see AdvanFort
Co. v. International Registries, Inc., 2015 WL 2238076, at *10, n.10 (E.D. Va. May 12, 2015),
and New Line has filed a Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) along with this Motion. The Court
need not take notice of these RJN sources to grant this Motion, but each supports that result.
B. The Demonologist Book
In November 1978, Brittle and the Warrens entered into a publishing agreement with
Prentice-Hall granting it the exclusive right to publish an unpublished work tentatively
entitled THE DEMONOLOGIST. Dkt. No. 39 (SAC) 29, Ex. 1 1. In a Collaboration
Agreement executed the same month, the Warrens granted Brittle the right to use the
Warrens vocal recollections in the Work. Id. Ex. 2 11.
The Book was first published in 1980. KD Ex. K. Each of its 15 chapters highlights
some of the Warrens philosophies as well as a different one of their paranormal investigations
using the Warrens real-life photographs and long passages of dialogue as [the Warrens] recall
the event, supported by first-person testimony by witnesses, and/or tape recordings the Warrens
made on the scene while phenomena were in progress. Id.; Book at xi.2 Much of the Book is
long verbatim quotes from the Warrens describing their work, in their own words. Book passim.
The Book purports to be a true account of events in the Warrens lives and was marketed
as such for decades. KD Ex. J, K (covers touting True Story True Accounts). Brittles
Authors Prefacewhich appeared in 1980, id. Ex. K, and in recent editions, toorepresents:
[A]ll the information presented in this book is true. Book at ix.

These are real cases that happened to real people. Id.
Great care has been taken to include only those cases in the Warrens files that
were witnessed by ordained clergymen and exorcists. Id.
It should be stressed that there is no exaggeration [in] this book. Id.
In this book Ed and Lorraine speak candidly [T]here are no more credible
spokespersons on the subject of supernatural phenomena. Their statements are
not only correct according to authoritative theological and academic texts, but
were read for accuracy by two Roman Catholic exorcists. Id. at x-xi.
2
Brittle incorporates the Book by reference in his SAC and, thus, the Court may consider it
on this Motion along with the contractual agreements he incorporates and attaches as well. See
RJN 5. New Line has lodged two copies of two editions of the Book with the Court. Id.
2
The Prentice Hall Agreement contained a provision for making a motion picture based on
the Book, see SAC Ex. 1 5, but no such movie was ever madewhich is unsurprising given
the Books format, and its brief accounting of a number of specific cases the Warrens handled.
C. Tony DeRosa-Grunds Involvement with the Warrens and New Line
Tony DeRosa-Grund is a producer based in Texas. See KD Ex. I at 4 (JAMS Award);
RJN 2-4. In 2009, he represented to New Line that he had a life-story agreement with the
Warrens and proposed making a motion picture based on one of their cases. Id. New Line and
DeRosa-Grund entered into agreements, pursuant to which New Line acquired all rights to, inter
alia, a screenplay for the movie The Conjuring, the life rights of the Warrens, and the entire
case file library of the Warrens investigations. JAMS Award at 5-10; SAC 69 & Ex. 17.
In the first of many difficulties with DeRosa-Grund, in August 2010 Lorraine Warrens
attorney wrote to New Line (Ed Warren had passed away in 2006), claiming that Lorraines
signature was forged on the underlying rights agreements on which DeRosa-Grund had relied.
See JAMS Award at 12-13. To remove any cloud on its title, New Line made an agreement
directly with Lorrainepursuant to which she granted New Line all her life rights and 75 cases
from the Warrens case file library. Id.; SAC Ex. 18. New Line also initiated a JAMS
arbitration against DeRosa-Grund in June 2013.
New Line released The Conjuring in July 2013, and it was a commercial success. SAC
89. The movie (two DVD copies of which New Line lodges with the Court) depicts the
Warrens Perron Farmhouse investigationwhich occurred when the Perron family moved
into a home in Harrisville, Rhode Island, only to discover demonic spirits inhabited it. KD Ex.
L. The Hayes Brothers wrote The Conjuring screenplay, and James Wan directed it.
Despite the success of The Conjuring, New Lines problems with DeRosa-Grund only
worsened, with him continually breaching his agreements. See JAMS Award at 24-27 (finding
3
such breaches occurred; affirming New Lines full rights in the Warrens case files). DeRosa-
Grund also launched a fraudulent series of lawsuits seeking to undermine New Lines rights.
In re Tony DeRosa-Grund, 4:09-bk-33264, Dkt. 122 at 69 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (KD Ex. E).3
D. Brittles Involvement in this Prior Litigation and His Related Admissions
DeRosa-Grund recruited Brittle (and other surrogates4) to join his litigation campaign,
and in prior lawsuits against New Line, the Warrens, and others, Brittle made admissions that
directly contradict his claims in this new Virginia case. To begin, in a JAMS arbitration between
New Line and DeRosa-Grund (in which DeRosa-Grund sought, inter alia, writing credit on The
Conjuring movie), Brittle submitted a sworn declaration in late 2014 attesting that the movie The
Conjuring is not related to the Book, see KD Ex. H 12 (highlighting added):5
Brittle, of course, now takes the exact opposite position in his SAC, claiming The Conjuring
movie is a striking copy of his Book. E.g., SAC 88-100.
Similarly, in prior federal litigation, Brittle repeatedly attested that DeRosa-Grund owned
all of the rights required to make motion pictures based on the Warrens life work and Case
Files. Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC, DeRosa-Grund, & Brittle v. Lorraine Warren, Tony
3
Id. at 61 (court: to an extreme degree, [DeRosa-Grund acted with] a bad faith intention to
play fast and loose with the judicial system), 71 (referring DeRosa-Grund to U.S. Attorney for
possible prosecution); id. Dkt. 403 at 41 (condemning DeRosa-Grunds sordid history of []
playing fast and loose with the truth and his willingness to sue New Line anywhere at any time).
4
Id. Dkt. 403 at 1, 41 (bemoaning that DeRosa-Grund and his surrogates had engaged in
vexatious litigation and will foment further frivolous litigation despite series of court defeats).
5
See Arora v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 2010 WL 2925178, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2010)
(taking judicial notice of documents filed in arbitration); RJN 3-4 (collecting additional cases).
4
Spera, Graymalkin Media, LLC, New Line Prods., Inc. & Warner Bros. Entmt Inc., 4:14-cv-
01117, Dkt. 1 68 (S.D. Tex.) (Brittle I) (Brittle asserting that DeRosa-Grunds company
acquired the rights associated with the [Warrens] Case Files, as well as the [Warrens] life
rights) (KD Ex. A); Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC, DeRosa-Grund & Brittle v. Lorraine
Warren, Tony Spera, & Graymalkin Media, LLC, 3:14-cv-01068, Dkt. 1 41 (D. Conn.)
(Brittle II) (same) (KD Ex. B); id. at 21 (Brittle seeking declaration that the agreements
governing the Warrens transfer of rights to DeRosa-Grund were valid, binding and existing);
Id. Dkt. 69 38 (Brittle asserting that DeRosa-Grunds company acquired [Warrens] life and
case file rights) (KD Ex. C). Of course, now that the JAMS arbitrator has ruled that New Line
owns the case files and life rights, see JAMS Award at 31-32, Brittle has switched positions
yet again and claims that he alone owns them, e.g., SAC 54d, 69, 98.
Brittle made these admissions in federal litigation that mirrors the claims he makes here.
In Brittle I, Brittle sued New Line (and others) for copyright infringement and other claims. He
alleged that The Conjuring 2 and Annabelletwo movies on which he sues again herecopied
the Annabelle and Enfield Poltergeist chapters in the Book. Brittle I, Dkt. 1 39-47, 125-
33. Brittle abandoned Brittle I once New Line moved to dismiss and showed how its movies did
not remotely infringe the Book. See Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC v. Warren, 4:14-cv-00793,
Dkt. 34 at 14-21 (S.D. Tex.) (KD Ex. G); id. Dkt. 39 (dismissing Brittle I) (KD Ex. D).
E. The Current Lawsuit
Brittle now brings this latest lawsuit, alleging the same baseless copyright infringement
claims (and tag-along, preempted state-law claims) as he did in Brittle I about the same movies
(The Conjuring 2 and Annabelle); two new movies New Line has yet to release (Annabelle:
Creation and The Nun); and one movie that is so early in its development that there is no script
for it (The Conjuring 3). He also asserts untimely claims about the original Conjuring movie,
5
even though he swore under oath in 2014 that this movie is not related to his Book. Supra at 4.
Brittles latest causes of actionall nine of themare meritless and should be dismissed.
ARGUMENT
[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While facts are taken in the light most favorable
to plaintiff, courts need not accept legal conclusions[,] unwarranted inferences, unreasonable
conclusions, or arguments. Brown v. Flowers, 196 F. Appx 178, 180 (4th Cir. 2006). On a
Rule 12 motion, a court may consider exhibits attached to plaintiffs complaint, materials on
which it relies, or judicially noticeable records without turning the motion into one for summary
judgment. Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Intl Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2015).
I. None of the Conjuring Movies Infringes the Book (Counts I-III, VIII).
A. Background Legal Principles
Movie-theft claims are all too common in Hollywood, and courts have developed clear
legal rules to dispense with non-meritorious claims. Five such principles are most on point here.
First, to prove infringement, plaintiff must establish ownership of the copyright and
copying by defendant. Darden v. Peters, 488 F.3d 277, 285 (4th Cir. 2007). Whereas here,
New Line concedes (only for purposes of this motion) that Brittle co-owns a copyright in the
Book,6 but denies any copying, Brittle must show a substantial similarity between protected
elements of the Book and each movie. Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 581-82 (4th Cir. 1996).
Bare legal conclusions that the movies are similar do not sufficeBrittle must allege specifics
to state a claim. Edwards v. Raymond, 22 F. Supp. 3d 293, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Second, it is appropriate to dismiss plaintiffs copyright claims on the pleadings if no
6
The Warrens co-own any copyrights in the Book, see, e.g., SAC Ex. 2 1-2, and, of
course, Lorraine granted New Line full rights to make the Conjuring movies, supra at 3.
6
reasonable jury could find substantial similarity exists. See Devils Advocate, LLC v. Zurich Am.
Ins. Co., 666 F. Appx 256, 263 (4th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases).
Third, while the substantial-similarity test has an extrinsic part (an objective comparison
of the works original elements) and an intrinsic part (a subjective inquiry that centers on the
impressions of a works intended audience), courts need only apply the extrinsic test on a Rule
12 motion. Copeland v. Bieber, 789 F.3d 484, 490 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). In applying this test, a
court must first engage in an analytic dissection, separating out those parts of the work that
are original and protected from those that are not. Id. at 489 (italics added). After identifying
these protected elements, the court must then analyze extrinsic similarities such as those found
in plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, or sequence. Towler, 76 F.3d at 584.
Fourth, [n]o one may claim originality as to facts[,] whether historical, biographical,
[or] news of the day. Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991).
Thus, [t]here is no [copyright] infringement where common sources exist for the alleged
similarities, or the material that is similar is otherwise not original with the plaintiff. Alexander
v. Haley, 460 F. Supp. 40, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Comins v. Discovery Commcns, Inc., 200 F.
Supp. 2d 512, 519 (D. Md. 2002) (same).
As examples, in Novak v. Warner Bros. Pictures, LLC, 387 F. Appx 747, 748 (9th Cir.
2010), plaintiffs documentary and defendants movie We Are Marshall shared the same
historical factsi.e., a tragedy that struck a college football program when a plane crash killed
most of the teams players, coaches, and boosters; and the community cohered to rebuild the
football program. The court rejected the documentarians copyright claims, holding that the only
concrete or articulable similarities between the works were historical facts or unprotectable
scenes a fairewhich all are free to exploit. Id. at 749.
7
The Last Samurai case held similarly. There, a movie script and Warner Bros. movie
shared the same title as well as numerous unprotectable points of overlap, including real-life
historical figures like the Japanese Emperor, a samurai uprising in the 1870s led by a so-called
Last Samurai as well as common scenes that flow naturally from the works shared
unprotected premisee.g., a scene of [an American] protagonist sailing into Japan, scenes in
the Imperial Palace, scenes on the Imperial Armys training grounds, and battle scenes. Benay
v. Warner Bros. Entmt, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 625-29 (9th Cir. 2010). The rule of such cases is
clearno one has a monopoly to tell stories or make movies about true-life figures and events.
Fifth, the only thing protected in works based on unprotected facts is an original
selection and arrangement of those facts. Feist, 499 U.S. at 348-49. Thus, [n]o matter how
original the arrangement is, the underlying facts themselves remain unprotected. Id. at 349;
Narell v. Freeman, 872 F. 2d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 1989) (copyright in historical accounts is
narrow indeed, embracing no more than the authors original expression of particular facts). In
addition, telling a story in chronological order is neither original nor protected.7
B. None of the Conjuring-Related Movies Infringes the Book.
1. Count I. The Conjuring movie, released in July 2013, stars Patrick Wilson and Vera
Farmiga as Ed and Lorraine Warren. Over 100 minutes of the movie is devoted to their Perron
Farmhouse case and the haunting of the Perrons home in Rhode Island. The Perron case is
7
See, e.g., Crane v. Poetic Prods. Ltd., 593 F. Supp. 2d 585, 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), affd, 351
F. Appx 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (The thin copyright protection afforded by Feist to the selection,
arrangement, and coordination of facts surely does not extend to the presentation of historical
events in the order in which they took place.); Thompson v. Looneys Tavern Prods., 204 F.
Appx 844, 853 (11th Cir. 2006) ([T]here are very limited ways in telling the story, i.e., in
chronological order. The repetition of these events in the screenplay w[as] not infringement.);
Effie Film, LLC v. Murphy, 932 F. Supp. 2d 538, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), affd, 564 F. Appx 631
(2d Cir. 2014) (Historical facts are not copyrightable, only their creative selection and
arrangement to form a new work.).
8
never mentioned in the Book, and, thus, it is unsurprising that Brittle swore under oath in 2014
that The Conjuring movie and the Book are not related. Supra at 4. Indeed, Brittle does not
identify a single scene in this last 107 minutes of the movie that he contends infringes the Book.
Instead, Brittle contends that the first five minutes of The Conjuring movie contain vast
and overwhelming similarities with Chapter III of the Book, titled Annabelle. SAC 95.
This untimely claim, infra at 24-25which openly contradicts litigation positions that Brittle
took under oath in 2014, supra at 4is specious. The Books Annabelle chapter concerns the
Warrens investigation of a Raggedy Ann doll owned by two nurses. Book at 49-67. The
story was widely reported for decades; indeed, the facts of the case and pictures of the real
Warrens with the real-life Annabelle doll proliferate the public domain. E.g., KD Exs. R, Y-AA,
LL. Like many parts of the Book, the Annabelle chapter is essentially a transcript of a recorded
interview that the Warrens conducted. In the nurses kitchen, Ed starts a tape recorder and says,
Id like to hear the whole story, right from the beginning. Book at 50. The nurses explain that
the big Raggedy Ann doll moves on its own and that they spoke with a medium who told them
that a seven-year-old (Annabelle Higgens) died on the property. Id. at 51-53. Annabelle asked
the nurses if she could stay with them and move into the doll, and the nurses said yes. Id. The
nurses recount their experiences with Annabelle in question and answer format. Id. at 50-55.
Most of the chapter (the last 12 pages) recounts the experiences of Cal (a fianc of one nurse)
with Annabelle and the Warrens experiences had when they take Annabelle home. Id. at 55-66.
All of these factual detailswhich Brittle for decades told the public are true, supra at
2are unprotected. E.g., Nash v. CBS, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 140, 142 (N.D. Ill. 1988), affd, 899
F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990) (plaintiff estopped from claiming that [story was] fictional where he
represented his books to be factual accounts); accord Houts v. Universal City Studios, 603 F.
9
Supp. 26, 28-30 (C.D. Cal. 1984); Oliver v. Saint Germain Found., 41 F. Supp. 296, 299 (S.D.
Cal. 1941). Moreover, most of the factual details that do appear in the Book do not appear in
The Conjuring movie, including the events described in the last 12 pages of the 18-page chapter.
The few basic facts of the Annabelle case that do overlap in the Book and the movie are
all unprotected, and there are significant differences in the ways the works present and arrange
them. The movie begins with a short interview from the Annabelle Case - Year 1968, KD Ex.
L at 00:00:55a real eventbut in the movie, the Warrens interview the nurses in their living
room instead, id. at 00:00:25-01:33 (pincites are to DVDs of the movie). As the nurses narrate,
the scene cuts (again unlike the Book) to dramatic flashbacks with spine-chilling music depicting
scenes in which a demonic Annabelle doll (not a Raggedy Ann) scribbles and leaves terrifying
notes all over the walls, trashes the nurses apartment, and is thrown away in a dumpster only to
appear in the apartment againall details not found in the Book. Id. at 00:01:34-03:51.
Image of doll in Conjuring (at 00:01:28) Image of doll from Book (at 67) Image of doll online (KD Ex. LL)
The movie cuts back to the interview, and the Warrens explain that there exists an inhuman spirit
that the nurses gave permission to infest their lives. Id. at 00:03:52-04:50. The Annabelle case
is not developed in the remaining 107 minutes of the movie; the nurses do not reappear; and the
doll only briefly appears once more in a glass case in the Warrens home (where, in real life, it is
10
kept). Id. at 00:17:10-18:16. Six minutes into the movie, the whole focus shifts to the Perron
family, the Warrens marriage, and the terrifying work that the Warrens did in the Perrons home
to exorcise Mrs. Perron and to stop her from harming her family. Id. at 00:06:15-01:46:00.
While Brittle now alleges The Conjuring and the Book share vast and overwhelming
similarities, SAC 95, and virtually identical copying, id. 97, these bare legal conclusions
are meaningless. Edwards, 22 F. Supp. at 300. They are also refuted by the many differences in
the two works. See, e.g., Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entmt Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072,
1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2006) (similarities were at a high level of generality; an actual reading of
the two works reveals greater, more significant differences); Eaton v. Natl Broad. Co., 972 F.
Supp. 1019, 1026-27, 1029 (E.D. Va. 1997), affd, 145 F.3d 1324 (4th Cir. 1998).
Brittles list of points of comparison, see Dkt. 39-27 (Appendix A), is simply inapt, given
that he compares the Book to a Conjuring scriptwhich includes scenes not in the movie, cf.
Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 299 (6th Cir. 2004) (must consider actual movie,
not script)and given that courts deem such list[s] comparing random similarities scattered
throughout the works [to be] inherently subjective and unreliable, Towler, 76 F.3d at 584.
If one does consider Appendix A, it lists one non-protectable fact after anotherall of
which must be filtered out in a courts substantial similarity analysis. Narell, 872 F.2d at 911;
Feist, 499 U.S. at 349; Effie Film, 932 F. Supp. at 554. These unprotected facts include that:
there existed a demonically possessed doll Annabelle owned by two nurses; a medium told the
nurses that a dead girl inhabited it; the doll moved on its own and communicated with the nurses;
a priest performed an exorcism; and the Warrens investigated the case, recorded their interviews,
and kept the doll. Similarly, to the extent the Book and movie contain actual quotations by real
peopleand the Book touts they are real quotes, e.g., supra at 2these quoted spoken words,
11
too, are facts that are not protectable by copyright. Crane, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 594.8
Any remaining similarities between the Book and movie are non-actionable scenes-a-
faire. See Eaton, 972 F. Supp. at 1029. For example, an investigator asking a subject to start her
story right from the beginning is not original. Even if it were, [d]efendants could hardly be
expected to change the sequence of [factual] events [and how Ed started the interview] simply to
avoid an appearance of similarity. Comins, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 520; see Crane, 593 F. Supp. 2d
at 595 (thin protection for coordination of facts surely does not extend to the presentation of
historical events in the order in which they took place); Gardner v. Nizer, 391 F. Supp. 940, 944
(S.D.N.Y. 1975) (descriptions of historical facts which both authors derived from similar
sources, such as interviews hardly could have been simply stated in a different fashion.).
In short, Brittles Count I claim has no merit, and he has not shown and cannot show
(even if allowed to amend) that The Conjurings dramatization and rearrangement of some of
the same historic facts infringes any protectable aspect of the Book. Crane, 593 F. Supp. 2d at
594; Narell, 872 F.2d at 911-12; Novak, 387 F. Appx at 749. Count I should be dismissed.9
8
Other unprotectable facts cited in Appendix A (some which do not appear in the movie)
include: Ed carried a recorder, camera and black attach; Debbie explained, I put [the doll]
on my bed each morning The arms would be off to its side and its legs would be straight out,
but when wed come home at night the arms and legs would be positioned [] different[ly]
Thats right, Angie replied, the big Raggedy Ann doll.[] Thats Annabelle. She moves!;
Ed got up and walked into the living room to inspect the doll. It was big and heavy, the size of
a four-year-old child; The black pupil list [sic] eyes stared back at him, while the painted on
smile gave the doll an expression of grim irony; So we did little things like bookmarks on
the Windows and doors or arrange the rug so anyone who came in would leave a trace that we
could see but never once did it turn out there was a real outside intruder.; The nurses tell the
Warrens that they would find notes - written by Annabelle that say HELP US; Ed tells the
nurses that they inadvertently brought an evil spirit into their lives. See also Olson v. Tenney,
466 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1238 (D. Or. 2006); Braddock v. Jolie, 2013 WL 12125754, at *7 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 29, 2013); Hoehling v. Universal Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 980 (2d Cir. 1980).
9
Brittles access allegationsthat James Wan read the Book and edited The Conjuring
script, SAC 90-94, 104, or that actors looked to the Book for guidance, id. 112-14do
12
2. Count II. Brittles complaint also targets the movie Annabelle, released in 2014, SAC
109-14, 131-37, but again this claim fails. Annabelle starts with 62 seconds of the same scene
from the start of The Conjuringi.e., the Warrens interview the same nurses, in the same room,
with the same clothes on, with the same demonic doll shown, and with nearly identical dialogue.
KD Ex. O at 00:00:54-01:56. As shown above, nothing in this scene infringes on the Book.
The remaining 96 minutes of the Annabelle movie have nothing to do with the Book
and feature a young couple (never mentioned in the Book) who owned the Annabelle doll before
the nurses (a storyline the Book never mentions). Indeed, other than the brief appearance of Ed
and Lorraine Warren, the only other people from the Annabelle chapter of the Book who
appear in the movie are the two real-life nurses who owned Annabelleand they make a fleeting
appearance in Annabelle of less than two minutes. Again, the Warrens and the nurses are real
people; Annabelle was a real doll (although her appearance in the movies is quite different and
more terrifying); and New Line had full rightsenshrined in both the Copyright Act and the
First Amendmentto make a new movie involving these historical figures and artifact. See
Benay, 607 F.3d at 626-29; Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302, 328-29 (2012); supra at 7-8.
Brittle contends that the similarities are not just substantial, but are also striking in the
Book and Annabelle movie. SAC 111. These erroneous legal conclusions do not satisfy the
Rule 12 test, see Edwards, 22 F. Supp. at 300, and are unsupported by any specifics. Brittles
Appendix B (comparing the two works) lists story elements that appear nowhere in the movie
not change this analysis. No claim of copyright protection can arise from the fact that plaintiff
has written about such historical and factual items, even if we were to assume that [defendant]
was alerted to the facts in question by reading [plaintiffs work]. Alexander, 460 F. Supp. at 45;
see also Friedman v. ITC Intl Television Corp., 644 F. Supp. 46, 46, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1986)
(defendant did not infringe biography where access conceded but similarities were generalized
or otherwise nonprotectible); Shame on You Prods. v. Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1132, 1149,
1171 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (movie did not infringe screenplay even when actress and director had
access to script because there was no substantial similarity between works as a matter of law).
13
(e.g., Try us. Please, from the start), and is infirm, as was Appendix A, because it merely lists
unprotectable story elements and does not grapple with the actual content of the movie.
Instead of depicting the Warrens full interview of the nurses (as does the Book), the
Annabelle movie depicts what happened Before The Conjuring movieand tells the story of a
young couple, Mia and John, who owned Annabelle before the nurses. KD Ex. O at 00:02:26;
id. (DVD cover). The couples life unravels as a demon (a pale, skinny, ratty-haired woman, and
not the seven-year-old girl in the Book) possesses the Annabelle doll and tries to kill Mia and
Johns baby. Id. at 00:16:00-18:40, 00:48:38-50:10, 01:07:00-01:31:40. The movie ends when
another mom buys Annabelle at a thrift shop for her daughter. She says her daughter is a nurse,
alluding to one of the nurses from the first scene of The Conjuring. Id. at 01:33:15-01:33:48.
Again, shortly after Brittle saw The Conjuringand its five-minute opening sequence
featuring Annabellehe swore under oath that The Conjuring movie and Book are not related.
KD Ex. H 12. His claim in this new case that a 62-second excerpt of that same five-minute
scene is now legally actionable copying is baselessas a matter of copyright law and common
sense. None of the 62 seconds at issue in Annabelle infringes original expression that Brittle
created. Rather, the only points of overlap are basic facts that copyright law does not protect.
E.g., Crane, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 594 (finding no substantial similarity in selection, coordination,
and arrangement of facts in two works detailing death of Pope); Comins, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 520
(comparison of the Book and the Film suggets only a similarity of facts and organization that
would be logical in any work describing an historical event such as the evolution of the Moon).
3. Count III. Brittle also targets The Conjuring 2, released in June 2016. SAC 101-
08, 131-37. This claim is so weak that Brittle does not even offer one of his Appendices to
support it, but instead claims copying occurred because both The Conjuring 2 and the Book have
14
scenes with a crucifix and a nun, and in both works, two of the Warrens real-life cases (the
Amityville and Enfield cases) are explicitly compared. Id. 104-06. None of this is actionable.
The Conjuring 2 begins with a scene in Amityville, New York 1976, KD Ex. M at
00:01:07the Amityville from the 1979 movie, supra at 1. Lorraine Warren has an awful
premonition in which she sees an entire family killed, and Lorraine is strangled by a horrifying,
deathly, demonic nun. KD Ex. M at 00:01:50-7:00. The movie cuts to text explaining that the
Amityville case catapulted the Warrens into the public eye, and that there was a haunting
occurring in Enfield, England that many would later compare to Amityville. Id. at 00:07:50-
8:12. The movie cuts to the Hodgson Residence Enfield, England - 1977. Id. at 00:10:48.
There, at night, two sisters play with an Ouija board and ask if there are any spirits who want to
communicate. Id. at 00:12:38-14:14. Strange events unfold, and one daughter, Janet, becomes
possessed, id. at 00:21:30-22:22, a televisions channels change wildly, id. at 00:28:30-29:45,
and a scary older man appears screaming my house, id. at 00:31:37-32:05.
The movie cuts back and forth between Enfield and the Warrens in Connecticut. In
Enfield, the terrifying older man continues to appear, furniture moves on its own, and bite marks
appear on Janet. Id. at 00:37:30-40:00. The media descends on the Hodgsons and widely reports
their plight. Id. at 00:48:55-54:37. The Warrens fly to England to investigate, id. at 01:02:11-
01:16:17, and ward off the evil spirits in a heart-pounding confrontation, including with the
deathly nun. Id. at 01:50:15-02:02:20. The movie closes with a note that the Enfield haunting
would go on to become one of the most documented cases in paranormal history. Id. at
02:05:25. Indeed, a BBC miniseries was devoted to the case. KD 40(a); Ex. KK.
The Enfield Voices chapter in the Book never mentions the Hodgsons by name, but
tells the story of the Enfield Poltergeist. As explained by Ed in the Book, the case involved a
15
divorced 50-year-old woman who moved to a house in Enfield with her three children. Book at
275. Two children made contact with six demonic spirits after playing with an Ouija board. Id.
The family experienced knockings, rappings, levitating, and black forms manifesting around the
house. Id. The police investigated, but to no avail. Id. In no time at all the press got
wind of the case and reporters and psychic researchers descended on this brick rowhouse.
[The media] not only put the family in the public eye, they thoroughly documented the reality of
the phenomena occurring there. Id. (italics added). Ed explains how he interviewed the family,
observed objects levitating and the girls episodes of possession, and the most compelling
thing was the physicalized voice manifestations of six different spirits. Id. at 276-77. Much of
the Books chapter is a transcript of an extract of an interrogation between Ed and the spirits,
id. at 279-85, with Ed explaining what happened as the interrogation occurred, id. at 281-82.
None of these historic facts is protected. Supra at 7-8, 12-13. Indeed, as the Book itself
admits, id. at 275, the facts of this case were well documented before the Book was even written.
A special features part of the DVD, moreoveran excerpt of which Brittle appended to his
complaint, KD Ex. Mhas an interview with the Hodgson family. The real-life Hodgsons share
pictures, news clips, and recount the events depicted in the movie, including how a chest of
drawers slid into the doorway, a curtain wrapped itself around one of their necks, and objects and
people levitated. Id. A photographer from the The Daily Mirror gives an interview also. Id.
There were multiple factual sources for The Conjuring 2, and Brittle can point to no
protectable expression in the Book that the movie copied. To begin, because so many elements
of the works are drawn from the same historical events, many of the key featuresplot, setting,
charactersare largely excluded from the protectable realm and, accordingly, from the
[substantial] similarity analysis. Effie Film, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 553-54.
16
Nor is the arrangement of the facts in the two works actionably similar. The Book
chapter starts with Ed losing control of his car on a Pennsylvania road; then goes into a long
discussion of precautions that the Warrens take on their cases; and then notes that Ed was just
back from England where he was working on This Enfield case [that] makes Amityville look
like a playhouse. Book at 271-74. The movie, in stark contrast, begins with a seven-minute
scene of Lorraines premonitions, in which she sees the mass family murder that occurred in
Amityville, as well as a demonic nun seeking to kill her and Ed. KD Ex. M 00:00:40-07:46.
Nor do the only two specifics that Brittle citesi.e., the upside-down crucifix or the nun
character, SAC 105-06evince copying. In movies about demonology, such symbols and
characters are familiar staples that do not give rise to a copyright claim, except under a gross
misunderstanding of the law. Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1293-94 (1985). Indeed, in
scores of movies in this genre, such symbols of Catholicism are replete. See RJN 9-11.10
Indeed, the repeated use of such symbols and charactersand even movie titles like Upside
Down Cross and The Nun, supra n.10flow naturally from the idea of a demonology story.11
10
Horror and occult movies referencing demons, Catholicism, nuns, and crosses include The
Exorcist (1973); The Amityville Horror (1979 & 2005); Stigmata (1999); Exorcist II (1977);
Possessed (2000); Paranormal Activity (2007); Upside Down Cross (2014); The Omen (1976 &
2006); The Convent (2000); and La Monga (The Nun) (2005). Id. The Court may consider the
contents and existence of these and other works in assessing whether alleged similarities are
unprotectable scenes-a-faire. E.g., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., Inc.,
155 F. Supp. 2d 1, 41 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Randolph v. Dimension Films, 634 F. Supp. 2d 779, 789
(S.D. Tex. 2009); Willis v. HBO, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17887, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2001).
11
Cf., e.g., Hogan v. DC Comics, 48 F. Supp. 2d 298, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (use of imagery
of blood, religious symbolism such as crosses and allusions to the bible are unprotectable scenes
a faire without which any vampire work would be incomplete); Acker v. King, 46 F. Supp. 3d
168, 175 (D. Conn. 2014) (using psychic abilities to save people, seeing and doing supernatural
things, and defeating villains are scenes a faire that flow necessarily from the idea of a character
using her psychic abilities to triumph over evil); Brown v. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entmt,
2015 WL 5081125, at *11 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 27, 2015) (thematic similarities relate to
unprotectable idea of an anti-Mary birthing multiple antichrists).
17
In any event, the fact that a cross appeared in the Enfield home, as reported in the Book,
is an unprotectable historical fact, and the expression of these elements was not at all similar. In
the Book, Lorraine finds one cross upside down on her dresser after playing a recording of the
demonic voices inside the Enfield house. Book at 285. In The Conjuring 2, Janet is transported
to a locked room, in which there are scores of crosses nailed to the walls. All at once, the crosses
turn upside down, and a demon attacks Janet. KD Ex. M 01:17:50-01:20:25.
As for the nun, copyright law provides very limited protection to characters presented in
a creative work. Basic character types are not copyrightable unless developed with some
degree of novelty. Eaton, 972 F. Supp. at 1027-28. Here, Brittle alleges that defendants copied
a nun identified once in the Book (and not in the Enfield Chapter) when Ed states: Loraine and
I have seen the Borley Nun walking along the road. Book at 11; SAC 106. Not only is the
fact of their observation unprotected, but this nun character is never developed in the Book.
In contrast, the nun in The Conjuring 2 is a horrifying, demonic spirit that plagues
Lorraine and appears in her premonitions foreshadowing Eds death. KD Ex. M at 00:05:53-
07:25, 00:32:25-33:05, 00:43:45-48:21, 01:44:07-01:47:40. There is no similarity between the
nuns in the two works, and the fact that a nun appears at all is a natural incident of the religious
theme present in supernatural phenomena. See, e.g., Jones v. CBS, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 748, 753
(S.D.N.Y. 1990) (no infringement: while plaintiffs work contained a conjure lady and
defendants worked contained two voodoo practitioners, the former was not a developed
character and reveals only the most general similarity that may be said to connect all those
who claim some knowledge of the occult).
4. Count VIII. One confusing aspect of Brittles complaint is a chart at page 20, which
claims that three yet-to-be-released moviesAnnabelle: The Creation (i.e., Annabelle 2), The
18
Nun, and The Conjuring 3INFRINGES ON PLAINTIFFS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
SUBSIARY [SIC] RIGHTS. Without ever having seen the movies (the last one of which is not
even written) Brittle claims that there are Overwhelming Similarities between the Book and
these works, SAC 87-88, and Count VIII seeks to enjoin the release of these movies.
Brittle has zero basis to make these conclusory allegations or to obtain any relief. With
respect to The Nun, and particularly with respect to Annabelle 2, Brittle has notand cannot
identify what defendants copied because the movies have not been released. Absent specific
allegations showing what protectable elements were copied, Brittles claims do not survive the
Iqbal or substantial-similarity tests. Supra at 6-8.12 Brittles claims about The Conjuring 3 fare
even worse; there is no script, no budget, and no guarantee that the movie will even be made.13
These pleading defects are all fatal, and Counts I-III and VIII should be dismissed.
II. Brittles Claims Based On The Case Files And His Contracts All Fail As Well, As
They Misread The Agreements And Contravene His Prior Admissions.
Brittles copyright infringement and state-law claims (Counts I-VII) further fail to the
extent they hinge on Brittles alleged ownership of the Warrens case fileswhich is an
ownership claim fundamentally at odds with representations Brittle has made to the courts in
prior litigation, and is unsupported by the plain terms of the parties agreements in any event.
Citing generally (but conspicuously not quoting the operative text of) the Collaboration
Agreement, Brittle alleges that he owns the exclusive right to use the Warren cases, case files
12
Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan, 880 F. Supp. 2d 425, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (dismissing copyright
infringement claim where complaint fails to identify any facts supporting plaintiffs claim).
13
There are other reasons why an injunction is improper. Among them, The Nun and
Annabelle 2 are not based on the Book, and neither even features the Warrens. Brittle also
cannot show that equitable relief is required. One (of many) reason(s) why: He never moved to
enjoin The Conjuring, Annabelle, or The Conjuring 2. Cf., e.g., Magnussen Furniture, Inc. v.
Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 116 F.3d 472, 1997 WL 337465, at *3 n.6 (4th Cir. 1997) (failure
to seek protection for 16 months grounds to deny injunction).
19
and related materialsand that [a]ll other persons and/or entities, including the defendants are
prohibited from using the Warrens Cases, Case Files and related materials for all of the
Warrens investigations that took place up to including July 26, 1981. SAC 39, 43, 54.
This erroneous claim borders on a Rule 11 violation. In prior federal litigation, Brittle
repeatedly claimed that DeRosa-Grundand not Brittleowned the Warrens Case Files and
related materials. Supra at 4-5; Brittle I, Dkt. 1 68 (Brittle contending that DeRosa-Grunds
company Evergreen acquired the rights associated with the [Warren] Case Files, as well as the
life rights of [the] Warren[s]). Knowing that his copyright claims premised on the Book are
baseless, Brittle now asserts that he owns the Warrens Case Files and sues defendants for their
asserted use of the Case Files in the six Conjuring movies. E.g., SAC 54(b), (d), 79-87.
Such blatant factual and legal flip-flops are not permitted, and DeRosa-Grund rightly has
been condemned for similar tactics in related Conjuring cases. Supra at 4 nn. 3 & 4; Dkt. Nos.
33 at 2 n.3; 40 at 3 n.1. Brittle, moreover, offers no proofnonethat he owns the copyright in
the Warrens case files or related materials (or has registered them), which is a further bar to any
copyright claims based on these materials (Counts I-III, VIII). See, e.g., Darden, 488 F.3d at 285
(noting plaintiff must establish ownership of the copyright for infringement claim).
In any event, when looking at the plain terms of the Collaboration Agreement, it never
mentions the case files or grants any rights in them. The Agreementwhich has no choice of
law provision, but which Brittle says was made in connection with the Prentice Hall Agreement,
SAC Ex. 1 19is governed by New York law. Skaff v. Progress Intern., LLC, 2014 WL
856521, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014) (where addendum silent on choice of law, original
agreements choice-of-law provision governed). Under the law of that state, the plain meaning
of a contract controls; extrinsic evidence is disfavored; and agreements that are complete, clear
20
and unambiguous on [their] face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of [their]
terms. Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc., 24 N.Y.3d 239, 244 (Ct. App. 2014). Under New York
law, grants of rights are only rarely impliedespecially to valuable intellectual property. E.g.,
Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC, 150 F. Supp. 2d 613, 620-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
([T]he grant of rights follows from the grant language alone.).
Nowhere in the Collaboration Agreement do the Warrens assign copyright or any other
rights in their case files to Brittle. Indeed, that termwhich Brittle capitalizes in his SAC and
in other lawsuits, supra at 4-5, 20appears nowhere in the Collaboration Agreement, in marked
contrast to the Warrens and DeRosa-Grunds agreements with New Line (which mention the
term repeatedly). E.g., SAC Ex. 17 1A.(a)(iii) (1A. PROPERTY. The entire case file
library (approximately 8,000 case files) related to the Warrens paranormal investigations (Case
Files)); Ex. 18 at 2-4 (Case Files, Case File Summaries, Unused Case Files).
All that the Collaboration Agreement mentions is that the Work will include some of the
Warrens vocal recollections. Paragraph 11 of the Collaboration Agreement states in full: The
Work [a book entitled The Demonologist] shall include extensive portions of material which are
the vocal recollections of the [Warrens]. It is expressly understood that [Brittle] is entitled to
make use of this material and has the exclusive right to use it in the Work. SAC Ex. 2 11.
This permission to use this materialdefined as vocal recollectionsin the medium
of a booki.e., the Workis not a copyright grant, for many reasons. First, the Agreement
makes plain that the Warrens and Brittle would be co-owners of all rights in the Work,
including copyright. Id. 1-2. The Warrens relinquished no rights. Cf. Burroghs v. Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 1320, 1324 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (agreement that transferred a
right to use characters did not transfer any copyright); 1 PATRY, COPYRIGHT LAW & PRACTICE
21
392 (1994) ([C]opyright owners should retain all rights unless specifically transferred.).
Second, vocal recollections are not fixed in a tangible medium of expression and thus
are not copyrightable. 17 U.S.C. 101; Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir.
1988) (A voice is not copyrightable. The sounds are not fixed.).
Third, while the Warrens actual written case files, photographs, audio recordings, or
other writings might be subject to copyright protection, the Collaboration Agreement mentions
none of them. The term vocal recollections does not include such sources.14
Brittles claim fails for a further reason still: the right to use vocal recollections in the
Work is not a grant to own or use the materials exclusively in any medium, including movies.
Rather, the Collaboration Agreement limits the right to make use of the material to one
medium, i.e., the Book. The Agreement does not use broad language like in any manner
medium or form that is required to make the sort of broad grant that Brittle suggests. Boosey &
Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481, 486 (2d Cir. 1998).
Indeed, for Brittle to prevail, he has to rewrite the words of the Collaboration Agreement
(without Lorraine even being named as a party here) to have the two words vocal recollections
also include the Warren cases, case files, and related materials for all of the Warrens
investigations, and he needs the word Work, defined as the Book, to mean motion pictures
also. Both New York law and common sense forbid these readings. [C]ourts may not by
construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new
14
See Book at x-xi (differentiating reconstructions of dialogue as Ed and Lorraine[] recall
the event from tape recordings Warrens made); Vocal, MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY
(2017) (uttered by the voice[,] oral); Oral, BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014)
(spoken or uttered; not expressed in writing); Recollection, id. (The action of recalling
something to the mind); see also In re Hughes, 353 B.R. 486, 500 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006)
(Creditors are not required to accept a debtors oral recitations or recollections of his
transactions; rather to qualify for a discharge in bankruptcy, a debtor is required to keep and
produce written documentation.) (italics added).
22
contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing. Law Debenture Tr. Co. of
N.Y. v. Maverick Tube Corp., 595 F.3d 458, 468 (2d Cir. 2010).
Moreover, under Brittles newly asserted reading, he contends that he has owned, since
1978, all movie rights related to the Warrens life work before 1981. Yet when The Conjuring
was released, he did nothing, except to declare that The Conjuring was not related to the Book.
Supra at 4. And when Annabelle and the Conjuring 2 were released, he filed suit arguing that
DeRosa-Grundand not heowned the case files, life rights, and rights to make the movies.
Supra at 5. Post-contractual conduct evinces contractual intent. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp.
v. Hastings, 446 F. Supp. 725, 728-29 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). Here, Brittles actions speak volumes.
Only now that DeRosa-Grund has lost his JAMS arbitrationwhich found that New Line owns
all right, title and interest to the [Warrens] approximately 8000 Case Files, KD Ex. I at 27,
32does Brittle assert his misreading of the Collaboration Agreement to attack New Line and
Lorraine Warren. This reading can and should be rejected by the Court as a matter of law.15
III. Brittles State Law Claims (Counts IV-VII) Are Time Barred, Preempted, And Run
Afoul Of Californias Anti-SLAPP Statute.
A. Governing Law. Virginia applies the law of the place of the wrong[] to tort
actions. Ford Motor Co. v. Natl Indem. Co., 972 F. Supp. 2d 850, 856 (E.D. Va. 2013). The
place of the wrong is the place the last event necessary to make an [actor] liable for an alleged
tort takes place, irrespective of where plaintiff was injured. Id. California law applies to
15
Brittle devotes 20 paragraphs, six pages, and nine exhibits to other contractual claims and
arguments that are neither relevant to this dispute nor ripe, including: who owns the subsidiary
motion picture rights in the Book (him or the Warrens), SAC 30, 40-41, 43, 47-50, 54(c); who
is the author of the Book (him alone, or with the Warrens), id. 33-34, 39, 44-45, 53, 54(a);
whether Brittle may validly terminate co-ownership rights with Lorraine in the Book, id. 51-
52; and whether she purportedly breached a no competing work and no unilateral sale
provisions, id. 31, 35, 43, 54(f)-(h), 56. All of these matters are contested, implicate a party
not before the Court, and do not give rise to a claim against New Line or the other defendants.
23
Brittles four tort claims because defendants alleged wrongful conduct took place in California.
Brittle contends that defendants trespassed on and converted his property rights, see SAC 149,
173; tortiously interfered with his Collaboration Agreement with the Warrens, id. 182; and
conspired with Lorraine to deprive Brittle of his exclusive rights, id. 158. New Lines deal
with Lorraine to which Brittle objectsher 2011 Life Story Option Purchase Agreementwas
executed by New Line in California and is governed by California law. Id. Ex. 18. New Line,
which produced and distributed the movies at issue, is based in California, see SAC 14, as are
the other defendants, id. 7-8, 10-13, 16-22. Brittle does not allege, nor can he, that any of the
Conjuring movies was written, produced, filmed, or edited in Virginiabecause none was.
Thus, California lawthe alleged origin of Brittles alleged harmsgoverns his state-
law claims. See, e.g., ABLV Bank v. Ctr. for Advanced Def. Studies Inc., 2015 WL 12517012, at
*2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2015) (District of Columbia law governed where it is undisputed that
[the] report [at issue] was published in [Washington] D.C. It is irrelevant that the negative
effects of that publication were felt in New York; any reputational damage caused by [defendant]
occurred everywhere due to the nature of online publication.); accord Cobra Capital, LLC v.
RF Nitro Commcns, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 432, 436-37 (M.D.N.C. 2003); Great Am. Ins. Co. v.
Nextday Network Hardware Corp., 73 F. Supp. 3d 636, 640 (D. Md. 2014).
B. Three of Brittles State-Law Claims Are Untimely. Brittles claims for trespass
(Count IV), conversion (Count VI), and interference (Count VII) are all time barred. Claims for
trespass and conversion are governed by a three-year statute and are triggered by the act of
wrongfully taking property. AmerUS Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 143 Cal. App. 4th 631,
639 (2006); Cannon v. Bettinger, 2009 WL 1594082, at *3-4 (Cal. Ct. App. June 9, 2009).
Interference claims are governed by a two-year statute, which commences at the date of the
24
wrongful act. DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 941, 948 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Defendants allegedly took Brittles property and tortiously interfered with his contract on
February 7, 2011, when Lorraine transferred to New Line exclusive ownership of all events,
experiences, stories and occurrences without limitation, and to all of the Warrens paranormal
investigations and experiences. SAC 72; see SAC 70, 180-82, Ex. 18. Brittle had to bring
any claim for interference by February 7, 2013, and any claims for trespass or conversion by
February 7, 2014. Brittle waited until November 2016, and thus these claims are time barred.16
C. All of Brittles State-Law Claims Are Preempted. The Copyright Act preempts
legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general
scope of copyright. 17 U.S.C. 301(a). The Act defines the Subject matter of copyright to
include literary works like the Warrens case files. 17 U.S.C. 102(a).
State laws that intrude on the domain of copyright are preempted. See U.S. ex rel. Berge
v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala., 104 F.3d 1453, 1463 (4th Cir. 1997). The gravamen of
Brittles four state-law claims is that New Line wrongly used the Warrens case files and related
materials in creating the Conjuring movies. E.g., SAC 4 (defining the Nature of Action as
one for defendants unlawful production of [the Pictures,] which are works derived from the
16
California law likewise precludes Brittles claim for business conspiracy (Count V), as that
Virginia statutory claim is not actionable in other states. See Ford Motor, 972 F. Supp. 2d at 861
([T]he law of Michigan applies [B]ecause Michigan law does not encompass the Virginia
Business Conspiracy Statute, the motion for summary judgment [is] granted.); Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs Co. v. Rick Strategy Partners, Inc., 2006 WL 5908727, at *8 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2006).
Brittles Copyright and Lanham Act claims (Counts I, IX) based on The Conjuring are also
untimelyat least in part. New Line released The Conjuring on July 19, 2013, SAC 89, and
Brittle delayed bringing suit until November 2016, Dkt. 1over three years later. Lanham Act
claims are subject to a two-year statute, see PBM Prod., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d
111, 121 (4th Cir. 2011), and copyright claims must be filed within three years, see 17 U.S.C.
507(b). Count Ito the extent it challenges distribution predating November 11, 2013is
time barred. So, too, is any aspect of Count IX based on conduct predating November 11, 2014.
25
[Book] and from other materials the plaintiff has sole and exclusive rights to use); id. at 20-21
(chart). Indeed, Brittles claims for trespass (Count IV), conspiracy (Count V), conversion
(Count VI), and interference (Count VII) all pivot on New Lines asserted wrongful use of the
Warrens Case files in making and distributing The Conjuring franchise of films. SAC
149-53, 158, 162, 172-75, 182-84. As such, Counts IV through VII are all clearly preempted.17
D. Brittles Claims Run Afoul of Californias Anti-SLAPP statute. California law
shields moviemakers from meritless claims that challenge the content of free speech like movies.
See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 425.16(b)(1); ABLV Bank, 2015 WL 12517012, at *2 (noting that
Californias anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal cases, given the substantive rights it affords).
To prevail on a SLAPP motion (and recover its fees and costs on Brittles state-law
claims), New Line must first show, under Prong 1 of Californias SLAPP test, that Brittles
claims arise from speech made in connection with a public issue. Fox Searchlight Pictures,
Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal. App. 4th 294, 306 (2011). The creation, content, and distribution of
motion pictureswhich Brittle challengeseasily meets the test. E.g., Kronemyer v. Internet
Movie Data Base, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 4th 941, 949 (2007) (movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding
constituted a topic of widespread public interest). Under Prong 2 of the SLAPP test, the
17
See, e.g., Wharton v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 144, 146 (D. Md. 1995)
(conspiracy claim based on the right to prepare derivative works preempted because the
central allegation was that defendants plagiarized his copyrighted screenplay); Maisha v. Univ.
of N. Carolina, 641 F. Appx 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2016) (conversion claim based on plagiarism
and lack of attribution preempted); C.A. Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 355, 367
(E.D.N.Y. 2008) (preempting trespass to chattels claim because the rights asserted were
equivalent to rights covered by Copyright Act); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation
Enters., 723 F.2d 195, 201 (2d Cir. 1983), revd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (tortious
interference claim preempted where unauthorized publication allegedly caused the violation).
See also Cannon, 2009 WL 1594082, at *3 (listing elements of trespass and conversion claim);
Scharpenberg v. Carrington, 686 F. Supp. 2d 655, 661 (E.D. Va. 2010) (same; conspiracy);
Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers, 795 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th
Cir. 2015) (same; tortious interference).
26
burden shifts to Brittle to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. To meet his burden,
he must overcome New Lines legal defenses. See Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal. App. 4th 892,
910 (2002). As shown above, Brittles four state-law claims are preempted by the Copyright Act
and are time-barred. Supra at 24-26. These four claims should be stricken as well as dismissed.
IV. Brittles Lanham Act Claim (Count IX) Fails For Numerous Reasons.
For the first time in his SAC, Brittle asserts a Lantham [sic] Act claim. SAC at 38. He
contends that defendants used false or misleading advertising in promoting The Conjuring, The
Conjuring 2, and Annabelle. And he asserts that defendants violated the law by failing to credit
him as the author of The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2. Neither theory has merit.
A. Brittles Lanham Act Claim Is Barred by the First Amendment.
Motion pictures are afforded full protection under the First Amendment. See Schad v.
Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981). As a result, a plaintiff who claims that a movie is not
true and harmed him, must meet the tests the First Amendment requires for such defamation-
like claims. He must show that the allegedly false scenes were of and concerning him, New
York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 288 (1964), and false and made with the requisite standard
of fault, see Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505, 522 (1999). Brittle does
not (and cannot) allege that any of the allegedly false scenes were about him; the movie does not
concern him at all. Thus, his attempt to invoke the Lanham Act is simply an an end-run around
First Amendment strictures, id., which is impermissible on many grounds, see, e.g., Stutzman v.
Armstrong, 2013 WL 4853333, at *17-19 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2013) (defendants promotions
that described books as nonfiction were inextricably bound to the non-commercial contents of
the books and protected under the First Amendment); Groden v. Random House, 61 F.3d 1045,
1051-52 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting any attempt to apply the Lanham Act to publishers ad (i.e.,
that Oswald did kill Kennedy alone) would raise substantial free speech issues).
27
B. Brittles Lanham Act Claim Makes No Sense In Any Event, Given The Book.
Brittle cannot complain that defendants engaged in misleading advertising by describing
The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, and Annabelle as based on a true story, SAC 196-97, 200-
01. For decades, he repeatedly said and profited from claims that the Warrens story is true
e.g., These are real cases that happened to real people; there is no exaggeration, Book at ix;
supra at 2. Indeed, the cover of the first edition of the Book proclaims: YOU ARE ABOUT
TO BEGIN THE MOST TERRIFYING TRUE EXPERIENCE OF OUR TIME; The true story
of Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren, the world famous exorcism team. KD Ex. K. The back of
the book jacket amplifies the claim: The horror that Ed and Lorraine Warren have fought for 35
years is real. They have smelled it, touched it, seen it, spoken with it. Id. (all underling added)
Thus, by Brittles own admissionswhich he cannot escape now, see, e.g., Nash, 691 F.
Supp. at 142; Houts, 603 F. Supp. at 28-30; Oliver, 41 F. Supp. at 299defendants based on a
true story marketing was accurate, and Brittle fails the first, most basic elements of his claim.18
All but conceding this defect, Brittle offers an alternate theory. He says the dynamic
between Ed and Lorraine as depicted in the movies is inaccurate, id. 202, and he objects to the
Annabelle marketing tagline Before the Conjuring there was Annabelle, id. 199. These
claims are specious also. First, in contravention of Iqbal, Brittle offers no specifics how the
Warrens family dynamic is erroneously portrayed, much less how that harmed him and
18
To plead a Lanham Act claim, Brittle must establish that (1) the defendant made a false or
misleading description of fact or representation of fact in a commercial advertisement about his
own or anothers product; (2) the misrepresentation is material, in that it is likely to influence the
purchasing decision; (3) the misrepresentation actually deceives or has the tendency to deceive a
substantial segment of its audience; (4) the defendant placed the false or misleading statement in
interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the
misrepresentation, either by direct diversion of sales or by a lessening of goodwill associated
with its products. Design Res., Inc. v. Leather Indus. of Am., 789 F.3d 495, 501 (4th Cir. 2015).
28
consumers.19 Second, as the marketing tagline based on a true story makes plainas a matter
of grammar and practiceobviously not every aspect in these movies is true. Cf., e.g.,
Greenspan v. Random House, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 206, 220 (D. Mass. 2012), affd, 2012 WL
5188792 (1st Cir. 2012) (dismissing Lanham Act claim; [t]he term nonfiction only means that
the literature is based on true stories or events, not that every statement is in fact demonstrably
true). Third, Annabelle does, in fact, tell a fictional back-story about the dolls owners prior to
the nurses in The Conjuring: In this thriller based on the terrifying doll from The Conjuring.
KD Ex. O. Brittle can cite no marketing that calls this back-story the literal truth.
C. Brittles Authorship Claim is Precluded by Dastar.
In Dastar Corp. v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 26 (2003), plaintiff
created a t.v. series titled Crusade in Europe based on rights it held in a book. When plaintiff
failed to renew its copyright in the series, defendant copied the series and sold edited segments
of it to the public, omitting any mention of plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff sued, claiming that defendant
violated the Lanham Act by selling the videos without giving plaintiff proper credit. Id. at 31.
The Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs claim: Such an interpretation of the Lanham Act
conflict[s] with the law of copyright, is out of accord with the history and purpose of the
Lanham Act and [is] inconsistent with precedent. Id. at 32, 33. [Origin of goods in the
Lanham Act] refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the
author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods. Id. at 37.
19
Cf., e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entmt Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 172,
182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (dismissing Lanham Act claim where allegations of consumer confusion
failed to cross the line into the realm of plausibility); Gifford v. U.S. Green Bldg. Council,
2011 WL 4343815, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) (dismissing plaintiffs false advertising claim
because any allegations of harm caused by defendant were entirely speculative); Beaulieu
Grp., LLC v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 2015 WL 11722814, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2015)
(dismissing false advertising claim where plaintiff failed to set forth anything other than
conclusory allegations and legal conclusions).
29
Dastar bars Brittles authorship claim. Compare SAC 207-13, with Jackson v.
Michalski, 2011 WL 3679143, at *13 (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2011) (Dastar foreclosed plaintiffs
claim that defendant violated the Lanham Act by claiming defendant was sole author); accord
Harbour v. Farquhar, 245 F. Appx 582, 582-83 (9th Cir. 2007). Brittles only remedy is a
copyright claim, which fails for the reasons shown in Parts II-III, supra.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the SAC should be dismissed, with prejudice.
Dated: June 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ J. Benjamin Rottenborn

Matthew T. Kline, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Lauren Rakow, Esq. (pro hac vice)
OMELVENY & MYERS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: 310-246-6840
Fax: 310-246-6779
[email protected]
[email protected]
Laura Lorenz, Esq. (pro hac vice)

OMELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-4001
Telephone: 202-383-5300
Fax: 202-383-5414
[email protected]
J. Benjamin Rottenborn (VSB #84796)

WOODS ROGERS PLC
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1400
10 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: 540-983-7600
Fax: 540-983-7711
[email protected]
Attorneys for New Line
30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 20, 2017, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing
document upon all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system for the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
/s/ J. Benjamin Rottenborn
J. Benjamin Rottenborn (VSB #84796)

WOODS ROGERS PLC
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1400
10 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: 540-983-7600
Fax: 540-983-7711
[email protected]

Brittle V Time Warner MTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brittle V Time Warner MTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brittle V Time Warner MTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:16-cv-00908-JAG Document 45 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 39 PageID# 2918

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANTS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.S AND

C.A. Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc.,

Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Rick Strategy Partners, Inc.,

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Ed and Lorraine Warrens Life Work

workinvestigating hauntings and working with church officials to exorcise demonsthe

B. The Demonologist Book

Prentice-Hall granting it the exclusive right to publish an unpublished work tentatively

entitled THE DEMONOLOGIST. Dkt. No. 39 (SAC) 29, Ex. 1 1. In a Collaboration

Warrens vocal recollections in the Work. Id. Ex. 2 11.

[A]ll the information presented in this book is true. Book at ix.

C. Tony DeRosa-Grunds Involvement with the Warrens and New Line

Tony DeRosa-Grund is a producer based in Texas. See KD Ex. I at 4 (JAMS Award);

arbitration against DeRosa-Grund in June 2013.

D. Brittles Involvement in this Prior Litigation and His Related Admissions

Conjuring is not related to the Book, see KD Ex. H 12 (highlighting added):5

movie is a striking copy of his Book. E.g., SAC 88-100.

E. The Current Lawsuit

to state a claim. Edwards v. Raymond, 22 F. Supp. 3d 293, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Second, it is appropriate to dismiss plaintiffs copyright claims on the pleadings if no

Supp. 2d 512, 519 (D. Md. 2002) (same).

scenes a fairewhich all are free to exploit. Id. at 749.

addition, telling a story in chronological order is neither original nor protected.7

B. None of the Conjuring-Related Movies Infringes the Book.

possessed, id. at 00:21:30-22:22, a televisions channels change wildly, id. at 00:28:30-29:45,

and a scary older man appears screaming my house, id. at 00:31:37-32:05.

[substantial] similarity analysis. Effie Film, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 553-54.

turn upside down, and a demon attacks Janet. KD Ex. M 01:17:50-01:20:25.

07:25, 00:32:25-33:05, 00:43:45-48:21, 01:44:07-01:47:40. There is no similarity between the

who claim some knowledge of the occult).

Nun, and The Conjuring 3INFRINGES ON PLAINTIFFS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED

33 at 2 n.3; 40 at 3 n.1. Brittle, moreover, offers no proofnonethat he owns the copyright in

([T]he grant of rights follows from the grant language alone.).

This permission to use this materialdefined as vocal recollectionsin the medium

1988) (A voice is not copyrightable. The sounds are not fixed.).

D. Brittles Claims Run Afoul of Californias Anti-SLAPP statute. California law

A. Brittles Lanham Act Claim Is Barred by the First Amendment.

Brittle cannot complain that defendants engaged in misleading advertising by describing

C. Brittles Authorship Claim is Precluded by Dastar.

Dated: June 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J. Benjamin Rottenborn

Laura Lorenz, Esq. (pro hac vice)

J. Benjamin Rottenborn (VSB #84796)

Attorneys for New Line

for the Eastern District of Virginia.

/s/ J. Benjamin Rottenborn

J. Benjamin Rottenborn (VSB #84796)

You might also like