OThe judge rules that Tess
Gerritsen hasn't alleged a
plausible theory on why the
studio holds any obligation
toward her.
A judge has just grounded Tess
Gerritsen 's lawsuit that Warner
Bros. breached the terms of a
1999 deal by coming out with its
blockbuster film Gravity, calling
the allegations "entirely
speculative."
In 1999, Gerritsen wrote a book
titled Gravity and sold film rights
to Katja, a company owned by
New Line, now a subsidiary of
Warner Bros., for $1 million plus
a $500,000 production bonus
and 2.5 percent of defined net
proceeds if the movie was ever
made. In her April 2014 lawsuit ,
she claimed that the Alfonso
Cuaron film was derived from
her 1999 book and thus the film
company owed her at least $10
million in damages on a movie
that grossed more than $700
million in box office and won
seven Oscars.
In her lawsuit, Gerritsen also
asserted that Cuaron was
attached at one point to write a
screenplay based on her book
and that in addition to the
similarities between her book
and the film, she wrote
additional scenes in which
satellite debris collided with the
International Space Station,
leaving its female doctor-
astronaut drifting in a space suit
searching for ways to return to
Earth.
Warner Bros. threw up
objections to the lawsuit for lack
of a contract between her and
the studio. The defendant also
aimed to undercut Gerritsen's
contention that New Line and
Katja are "shells" through which
Warner Bros. does business.
U.S. District Judge Margaret
Morrow distinguishes between
the galaxies.
"Even when her allegations are
construed in Gerritsen's favor, it
is apparent that she cannot
plausibly allege a claim under
traditional contract law
theories," writes the judge.
"Gerritsen pleads that she
entered into contracts with Katja
and New Line that entitled her to
payment if Katja produced a
motion picture based on her
book; and that WB, not Katja,
produced the Film that is
allegedly 'based on' the Book. No
plausible inference arises from
these allegations that WB was a
party to the contracts or that
Katja produced the Film."
In the decision (below), Judge
Morrow also can't find
alternative theories of Warner
Bros.' liability.
For example, to the theory that
the studio is the "successor-in-
interest" to Katja's and New
Line's obligations, the judge says
it's "largely conclusory" that
those obligations were assigned
to Warner Bros. as part of the
2008 deal to acquire New Line.
Nor can Gerritsen establish that
the Warner Bros./New Line/Katja
consolidation involved the
transfer of assets for the
fraudulent purpose of escaping
liability. The judge says there
are no facts to support this
allegation.
Gerritsen comes back to Earth in
alleging that Warner Bros. and
the companies she did a deal
with are "alter egos" of each
other.
"Gerritsen alleges no facts
showing that New Line and Katja
are 'shell corporations,' nor does
she plead facts showing that WB
directs New Line's and Katja's
business activities," writes
Morrow. "Similarly, Gerritsen
does [not] detail how it is that
WB exercises complete
management, control, ownership
and domination over New Line
and Katja. Without a factual
basis, her conclusory allegations
are insufficient."
The judge dismisses Gerritsen's
complaint and is giving her 20
days to file an amended lawsuit,
without new claims (like
copyright infringement) but with
an opportunity to cure the
deficiencies. However, the judge
refused to permit discovery after
not being impressed by the
sufficiency of the first attempt's
conclusory allegations. If
Gerritsen could support her
claims against Warner Bros., she
probably would have done so
already. It may not be totally
over. But for now, it's looking
that way.
In a statement, Warner Bros
said, "We are very gratified by
the court’s ruling, as there is no
merit to these claims. As the
plaintiff herself has admitted,
'Yeah, Gravity is a great film, but
it's not based on my book."
More information with video
Click
http://adf.ly/1m9Nf5
No comments:
Post a Comment