Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp.
Citations: 383 F.3d 965; 2004 WL 1977668Docket: No. 01-57255
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 8, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Jeff Grosso appeals the district court's judgment favoring Miramax Film Corp. and others regarding allegations of breach of contract and copyright infringement related to his screenplay, *The Shell Game*, claiming Miramax appropriated his ideas for the film *Rounders*. The appeal addresses two district court rulings: one granting summary judgment on the copyright claim and the other dismissing the state law claim as preempted by the Copyright Act. The appellate court affirms the summary judgment on the copyright claim, noting the works are not substantially similar in genre, mood, themes, settings, characters, or plots, with any dialogue similarities arising solely from common poker jargon. Conversely, the court reverses the dismissal of the state law breach of implied contract claim, referencing the California Supreme Court's decision in *Desny v. Wilder*, which allows for the existence of an implied contract where ideas are disclosed with an expectation of compensation. The court finds Grosso's complaint aligns with the *Desny* requirements, stating he submitted his idea to Miramax with the understanding of reasonable compensation for its use. The court also evaluates the preemption issue under the Copyright Act, which necessitates showing that the state law claim offers rights qualitatively different from copyright protections, indicating that Grosso's claim includes the requisite "extra element" to survive preemption. The decision in Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc. establishes that an implied promise to pay is an 'extra element' for preemption purposes under copyright law. In that case, the defendants used the plaintiff's idea without compensation, leading to a liability judgment based on a Desny claim. It was clarified that the contract claim was focused on the implied promise rather than copyright existence. In contrast, the Del Madera case found that a claim for unjust enrichment was preempted due to lacking this extra element of a bilateral expectation of compensation. In the current case, Grosso asserts the presence of this extra element in his breach of an implied-in-fact contract claim, indicating it should not be preempted by the Copyright Act. Consequently, Grosso's allegations could support a Desny claim that is not preempted. The district court's summary judgment on the copyright claim is affirmed, while the dismissal of the state law claim is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Each party will bear its own costs.