Case 2:22-cv-03846-PA-GJS Document 20-5 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:478
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOLLY M. LENS (S.B. #283867)
` mlens@omm.com
`DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802)
` dpetrocelli@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-6035
`Telephone: +1 310 553 6700
`Facsimile: +1 310 246 6779
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Paramount Pictures Corporation
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SHOSH YONAY and YUVAL YONAY,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`PARAMOUNT PICTURES
`CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
`and DOES 1-10,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:22-CV-3846-PA
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`GRANTING DEFENDANT
`PARAMOUNT PICTURES
`CORPORATION’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`Hearing Date: November 7, 2022
`Hearing Time: 1:30 PM
`Place: Courtroom 9A
`Judge: Hon. Percy Anderson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 2:22-CV-3846-PA
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-PA-GJS Document 20-5 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:479
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`[Proposed] Order
`Pending before the Court is Paramount Picture Corporation (“PPC”)’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Motion”). For the
`reasons summarized below, the Court grants the Motion.
`At the outset, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for copyright infringement
`because they do not plausibly allege a substantial similarity between the original,
`protectable elements of PPC’s 2022 film Top Gun: Maverick (“Maverick”) and
`Ehud Yonay’s 1983 nonfiction article Top Guns (the “Article”). See Rentmeester v.
`Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2018). Factual information “may
`not . . . form the basis for a copyright claim.” Corbello v. Valli, 974 F.3d 965, 971
`(9th Cir. 2020). The same is true for ideas, scènes à faire, and stock scenes and
`themes. See Musero v. Mosaic Media Grp., Inc., 2010 WL 11595453, at *2 (C.D.
`Cal. Aug 9, 2020). Such unprotectable elements aside, Maverick and the Article are
`wholly dissimilar works. Among other things, they advance unrelated plots,
`contain different sequencing, pacing, and moods, and utilize distinct characters,
`themes, and dialogue. As a result, Maverick does not infringe on Plaintiffs’
`copyright in the Article.
`Because there is no substantial similarity between the Article and Maverick,
`Maverick is not a derivative work of the Article as a matter of law, and thus,
`Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim also fails.
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ contract claim fares no better. Plaintiffs’ assertion
`that Yonay’s 1983 assignment of his motion picture rights in the Article to PPC (the
`“Assignment”) obligated PPC to provide him with a credit on Maverick is
`undermined by the Assignment’s unambiguous language. See Monaco v. Bear
`Stearns Residential Mortg. Corp., 554 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
`(“Resolution of contractual claims on a motion to dismiss is proper if the terms of
`the contract are unambiguous.”). The Assignment plainly requires that a film be
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 2:22-CV-3846-PA
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-PA-GJS Document 20-5 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:480
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`produced under the Assignment’s copyright grant before any credit obligation is
`triggered. Dkt. 16, Ex. 2 at ¶ 7(b). Here, because Maverick does not use any of the
`Article’s protectible expression—and because Plaintiffs themselves allege that PPC
`did not possess any rights under the Assignment after Plaintiffs’ copyright
`termination, Am. Compl. ¶ 37—Maverick necessarily was not produced under the
`Assignment’s grant. So no credit is due.
`Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED.
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`Dated: _______________________
`
`
`
`The Honorable Percy Anderson
`Judge, United States District Court
`for the Central District of California
`
`
`
`2
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 2:22-CV-3846-PA
`
`