Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------x
`
`CHRISTOPHER GENTILE and JUAN A.
`CRAWFORD,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-v-
`
`KEVIN DOYLE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. 1:21-cv-08528-LTS
`
`-------------------------------------------------------x
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Plaintiffs Christopher Gentile and Juan A. Crawford (together, “Plaintiffs”) bring
`
`this action against Kevin Doyle (“Defendant”), alleging that Mr. Doyle and his former co-
`
`defendant, Cassi Crededio, applied for, and received, copyright registrations of versions of a
`
`draft screenplay without proper authorization. Plaintiffs allege that they are the sole owners and
`
`authors of at least one version of that draft screenplay and assert claims for declaratory relief and
`
`copyright infringement. (See docket entry no. 52 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”).)
`
`Before the Court is Mr. Doyle’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
`
`granted or, in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike certain
`
`allegations and requests for relief against Ms. Crededio. (Docket entry no. 56 (the “Motion”).)
`
`The Court has jurisdiction of the dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`The Court has reviewed carefully the submissions in connection with the instant
`
`motion. For the following reasons, Mr. Doyle’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended
`
`Complaint is granted in its entirety.
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 14
`
`Factual Background
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The following facts, drawn from the Second Amended Complaint, are taken as
`
`true for the purposes of the instant motion practice.
`
`The Untitled Wyoming Project
`
`This case concerns ownership of two draft versions of a screenplay referred to as
`
`the “Untitled Wyoming Project” or “The Monarch” (the “Work” or the “Untitled Wyoming
`
`Project”). Mr. Gentile first conceived of the idea for the Work approximately fifteen years ago,
`
`when he was inspired by the idea of a show “focused around a flawed female heroine.” (SAC
`
`¶¶ 24-25.) After learning that Wyoming was the “first state or territory in the nation to grant
`
`suffrage to women, in 1869[,]” Mr. Gentile decided to create a show based upon the women’s
`
`suffrage movement in the American West, led by a “madam” in the Wyoming area who “ran a
`
`brothel” and also “championed women’s rights.” (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) Mr. Gentile shared this idea
`
`with his long-time friend and colleague, Mr. Crawford, and together, they “conducted extensive
`
`research” into the relevant historical period. (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiffs then worked together to draft
`
`“the early versions of” a television series “focused on the role that madams of brothels in [the]
`
`American West played in bring[ing] suffrage rights to women.” (Id. at ¶ 28.) Mr. Crawford
`
`submitted a short draft of “the first few scenes” of the Work to the Writers Guild of America (the
`
`“WGA”). (Id.; see also id. at ¶ 40 (describing the version submitted to the WGA as the “first
`
`pages of the Work”).)
`
`The First Script
`
`Mr. Crawford met Ms. Crededio on a set for a different project in which Mr.
`
`Crawford had an acting role and mentioned that “he and Mr. Gentile were looking for assistance
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 3 of 14
`
`with fleshing out some of their original ideas into a working script.” (SAC ¶ 29.) Ms. Crededio
`
`was subsequently hired and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement with Mr. Gentile on
`
`October 22, 2019, agreeing to “treat all Confidential Information” including “materials relating
`
`to Untitled Wyoming Project” with “the strictest confidence.” (Id. ¶ 31.) Ms. Crededio
`
`collaborated with Plaintiffs over about a three-week period, from October 14, 2019, to November
`
`2, 2019, during which time she “provided written contributions” to the opening scenes of the
`
`Untitled Wyoming Project (the “First Script”).1 (Id. ¶ 33.) During this time, “Ms. Crededio was
`
`given explicit instructions by Mr. Gentile and Mr. Crawford with regard to: creation of
`
`characters, descriptions of scenes, development of themes, and specific dialog.” (Id. ¶ 34.)
`
`“After contributing to three acts of the script, Plaintiffs and Ms. Crededio parted ways[,]” and
`
`“Ms. Crededio was paid a sum of $500 for her contributions to each completed act.” (Id. ¶ 36.)
`
`After completing the draft of the first three acts of the screenplay, Ms. Crededio
`
`registered the draft with the U.S. Copyright Office. (SAC ¶ 70.) Although Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`against Ms. Crededio have been dismissed (see docket entry no. 47), Plaintiffs assert that Ms.
`
`Crededio’s “filing of her registration statement constituted . . . fraud on the U.S. Copyright
`
`Office” because “she falsely represented that she was the sole owner and author of the work”
`
`(SAC ¶ 72; see also id. ¶¶ 73-76).
`
`The Second Script
`
`Plaintiffs allege that the “‘Untitled Wyoming Project’ has gone through many
`
`adaptations and permutations,” since Ms. Crededio’s relationship with Plaintiffs deteriorated
`
`“and, as of the filing of this Second Amended Complaint, is still not finished.” (SAC ¶ 37.) Mr.
`
`1
`
`The First Script is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. (Docket
`entry no. 52-1.)
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 4 of 14
`
`Doyle “was allowed to oversee” one of these adaptations (the “Second Script”)2 “[a]round the
`
`time Ms. Crededio ceased her working relationship with Plaintiffs . . . due to his close friendship
`
`with Mr. Gentile.” (Id. ¶ 11.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege both (i) that the Second Script “was solely authored by Plaintiffs”
`
`and (ii) that Mr. Doyle “contribute[d]” “revisions, adaptions, [and] development of . . . ‘Untitled
`
`Wyoming Project’s’ script, characters, scenes, setting, stage direction, [and] dialogue” (albeit “at
`
`Plaintiffs’ explicit direction”). (SAC ¶¶ 79-80.) Plaintiffs allege that “all of [Mr. Doyle’s]
`
`contributions” to the Second Script “rest[] in the form of two draft scripts and a format bible,”
`
`which were not “made independently of Plaintiffs’ explicit direction.” (Id. ¶ 80.) The Second
`
`Amended Complaint further alleges that Plaintiffs “dictated” descriptions of various characters,
`
`settings, and plot points and “were responsible for most of the drafting” of one vignette. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 86-117.)
`
`While drafting the Second Script in the spring and summer of 2020, Mr. Doyle
`
`discussed pitching the Untitled Wyoming Project to various entertainment companies. (SAC
`
`¶¶ 119-20.) Plaintiffs told Mr. Doyle, “on multiple occasions, that they had no interest in
`
`pitching their project in its current state,” but “Mr. Doyle independently pitched the Work to the
`
`entertainment company Zero Gravity Management.” (Id. ¶ 120.) Plaintiffs “ceased associating
`
`with Mr. Doyle” when they learned that he “had secretly approached Zero Gravity and falsely
`
`portrayed Untitled Wyoming Project as his own work product.” (Id. ¶ 123.)
`
`2
`
`The Second Script is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit B. (Docket
`entry no. 52-2.)
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 5 of 14
`
`In October 2020,3 “Plaintiffs learned that Mr. Doyle had applied for, and been
`
`granted, a registration of the Work with both the WGA and the U.S. Copyright Office.” (SAC
`
`¶ 124.) The registration, which refers to the Second Script as “Wonderland: The Equality State,”
`
`“lists Ms. Crededio as providing Mr. Doyle with permission to file his registration. . . .” (Id.
`
`¶¶ 124-25.) As soon as Plaintiffs learned of the copyright registration, Plaintiffs sent Mr. Doyle
`
`a cease-and-desist letter. (Id. ¶ 128.) After one month had passed without a response from Mr.
`
`Doyle, Plaintiffs applied for, and were granted, their own copyright registration of the Untitled
`
`Wyoming Project, using the same script that Mr. Doyle had registered as his own work. (See id.
`
`at 127, 129.) Mr. Doyle responded to the cease-and-desist letter in March 2021 to “notify[]
`
`Plaintiffs that he had no intention to stop his unlawful infringement of Plaintiffs’ Work.” (Id.
`
`¶ 135.)
`
`Procedural History
`
`In anticipation of Plaintiffs’ filing of the First Amended Complaint, on July 1,
`
`2022, Judge Broderick, to whom this case was previously assigned, denied as moot Ms.
`
`Crededio’s motion to dismiss the original pleading. (Docket entry no. 28.) In that order, Judge
`
`Broderick expressed his “concerns about whether Plaintiffs [had] adequately plead[ed] their
`
`authorship of the Work” because the “allegations seem[ed] to plead only that [Plaintiffs]
`
`provided Crededio with ‘ideas,’ rather than that they provided any particular ‘manner[s] of
`
`expression’ that became part of the Work.” (Id. at 4 (citation omitted).) Judge Broderick noted
`
`that Plaintiffs failed to “plead any ‘written instrument’ through which they and Crededio agreed
`
`that the Work ‘shall be considered a work made for hire[,]’” and observed that the “Complaint
`
`3
`
`It was also around this time that Plaintiffs were made aware of the copyright registrations
`filed by Ms. Crededio. (SAC ¶ 8.)
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 6 of 14
`
`appear[ed] to portray Crededio as an ‘independent contractor when [s]he produced the’ Work.”
`
`(Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted).) In directing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, Judge
`
`Broderick instructed that the revised pleading “should include . . . some or all of the following:
`
`(1) a copy of the Work; (2) copies of the ‘physical outlines,’ ‘rough drafts,’ or other work
`
`product ‘provided by the Plaintiffs’ to Crededio demonstrating Plaintiffs’ alleged authorship of
`
`the Work . . . [;] (3) allegations about which specific parts of the Work they believed they
`
`authored; and (4) if it exists, any written employment agreement Plaintiffs entered into with
`
`Crededio[,]” in order to meet their “burden to plead sufficient ‘factual content’” to render their
`
`claims plausible. (Id. at 5-6 (citations omitted).) In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs
`
`described the portions of the scenes they claim to have “authored,” been “responsible for,” and
`
`“dictated.” (Docket entry no. 31 (the “First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”) ¶¶ 43-65.)
`
`Plaintiffs also attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint “the version of the script as
`
`it existed when they ceased to employ Ms. Crededio on or about November 2, 2019.” (Id. ¶ 40.)
`
`Mr. Doyle filed an amended answer and counterclaims (docket entry no. 39), and
`
`Ms. Crededio moved to dismiss the claims against her (docket entry no. 37). On March 31,
`
`2023, this Court granted Ms. Crededio’s motion in its entirety. (Docket entry no. 47 (the
`
`“Order”).) In that Order, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ allegations that they “conceived of the
`
`idea for the Work, conducted significant research into developing their idea, . . . committed their
`
`early conceptions to writing in the form of outlines [and a WGA submission]” and “dictated the
`
`details of scenes, characters, plot points, and dialog” were insufficient to render their claims of
`
`“authorship” plausible. (Id. at 7-8.) The Court further found that Plaintiffs’ allegations that they
`
`“dictated” or “were responsible for” elements of the script to be “replete with legal
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 7 of 14
`
`conclusions[,]” “vague[,]” and “devoid of factual detail about the scope of their responsibility.”
`
`(Id. at 9.)
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices, Mr. Doyle informed Plaintiffs that, in
`
`light of the Court’s Order, he intended to move for judgment on the pleadings on the claims
`
`against him and asked whether they intended to amend the First Amended Complaint. (Docket
`
`entry no. 49.) Plaintiffs indicated that they sought to amend their claims against Mr. Doyle (id.)
`
`and filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2023. Mr. Doyle subsequently filed a
`
`motion to dismiss the pleading or, in the alternative, to strike allegations and requests for relief
`
`against Ms. Crededio. After Mr. Doyle’s Motion was fully briefed, Ms. Crededio filed a letter
`
`supporting Mr. Doyle’s motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint related to
`
`Ms. Crededio and reserving her right to intervene “if and when the circumstances warrant.”
`
`(Docket entry no. 70 (“Crededio Letter”) at 2.)
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). A complaint cannot simply recite legal
`
`conclusions or bare elements of a cause of action; it must plead factual content that “allows the
`
`court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
`
`Id. Under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court accepts as true the non-conclusory factual
`
`allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Roth v.
`
`Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 2007).
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 8 of 14
`
`Count One: Declaratory Judgment4
`
`Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking
`
`declarations (1) “that the copyright registration held by Ms. Crededio is invalid on account of her
`
`committing fraud on the U.S. Copyright Office”; (2) “that the copyright registrations held by Mr.
`
`Doyle are invalid”; and (3) “that their copyright registration is valid, and Plaintiffs therefore are
`
`co-owners and authors of the Work with Ms. Crededio and are the sole authors of” the Second
`
`Script. (SAC ¶¶ 140-42.)5 Not one of Plaintiffs’ requests is legally viable.
`
`Claims Against Ms. Crededio
`
`Notwithstanding their assertion to the contrary, there is no doubt that, in their
`
`request for declaratory judgments, Plaintiffs seek relief against Ms. Crededio, their claims
`
`against whom have already been dismissed. Indeed, the Second Amended Complaint explicitly
`
`seeks a declaration “that the copyright registration held by Ms. Crededio is invalid on account of
`
`her committing fraud on the U.S. Copyright Office.” (SAC ¶ 140.) Plaintiffs’ assertion that the
`
`Second Amended Complaint does not seek relief against Ms. Crededio (docket entry no. 66 (“Pl.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Plaintiffs’ Count One demands a “declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 re
`Rights of ‘Untitled Wyoming Project.’” (SAC ¶¶ 137-43.) Declaratory judgment is a
`type of relief, not an independent cause of action. For this reason, the Court analyzes this
`cause of action as a claim seeking declaratory relief in the context of alleged copyright
`infringement.
`
`The Second Amended Complaint also seeks, in the alternative, a declaration “that
`Plaintiffs and Mr. Doyle are co-authors of the Derivative Work.” (SAC ¶ 143.) Because
`Plaintiffs do not mention this request in their opposition to the Motion (see docket entry
`no. 66 (“Pl. Mem.”)), the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have abandoned their alternative
`strategy. See Williams v. Westchester Med. Ctr. Health Network, No. 21-CV-3746-
`KMK, 2022 WL 4485298, at *5 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022) (citation omitted)
`(“Courts in this Circuit have presumed that plaintiffs have abandoned their claims when
`they do not oppose a motion to dismiss them.”).
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 9 of 14
`
`Mem.”) at 17) is plainly inconsistent with the face of their pleading. Plaintiffs’ assertion of
`
`claims that would affect Ms. Crededio’s rights in the First Script is improper under Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 15, which requires court permission or opposing party consent for
`
`amendments that are not made as of right. Ms. Crededio did not consent to, and the Court did
`
`not grant Plaintiffs leave to file, new claims against her. After the Court dismissed the First
`
`Amended Complaint against Ms. Crededio, the remaining parties met and conferred regarding
`
`Mr. Doyle’s intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See docket entry no. 49.)
`
`Those discussions produced a stipulation, in which Mr. Doyle consented to the filing of
`
`“Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).”
`
`(Id.) Not only does the stipulation make clear that Mr. Doyle consented only to Plaintiffs’ intent
`
`“to amend their claims against Doyle” (id.), but Plaintiffs have also not even attempted to make a
`
`showing that Mr. Doyle was authorized to consent to the assertion of claims against Ms.
`
`Crededio. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the
`
`opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”) Nor did Magistrate Judge Wang, in
`
`authorizing the filing of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to the stipulation, suggest that
`
`Plaintiffs could reassert claims against Ms. Crededio. (Docket entry no. 51.)
`
`A court can address failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`15(a)(2) in a number of ways, including by striking the complaint. Cummings v. Adidas USA,
`
`08-CV-9860-SAS, 2009 WL 3270888, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2009). Here, the allegations
`
`concerning Ms. Credidio and the elements of the Second Amended Complaint that, in essence,
`
`seek relief against her are unauthorized and inconsistent with the earlier dismissal of the claims
`
`against her. The simplest solution is the most appropriate one here: Plaintiffs’ claims concerning
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 10 of 14
`
`Ms. Crededio, including the allegations concerning the validity of her purported copyright, are
`
`stricken from the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`Claims Against Mr. Doyle
`
`With the claims against Ms. Crededio stricken, two remaining declaration
`
`demands remain in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek declarations (1) “that the
`
`copyright registrations held by Mr. Doyle are invalid”; and (2) “that [Plaintiff’s] copyright
`
`registration is valid, and Plaintiffs are therefore . . . the sole authors of” the Second Script. (SAC
`
`¶¶ 141-42.) There is no legal authority for the first request, and the factual allegations proffered
`
`in the Second Amended Complaint are not sufficient, as a matter of law, to support either
`
`request.
`
`As an initial matter, “[n]othing in the Copyright Act, nor any other federal statute,
`
`grants federal courts the power to cancel or nullify a copyright registration.” Pastime LLC v.
`
`Schreiber, No. 16-CV-8706-JPO, 2017 WL 6033434, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017). Plaintiffs’
`
`request for a declaration “that the copyright registrations held by Mr. Doyle are invalid” (SAC
`
`¶ 141) is, therefore, not legally cognizable and must be dismissed.
`
`Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration “that their copyright registration is valid, and
`
`Plaintiffs . . . are the sole authors of” the Second Script (SAC ¶ 142) fares no better. While a
`
`declaration that a copyright is valid is a remedy that a court can grant (Schreiber, 2017 WL
`
`6033434, at *4), Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to support their underlying premise—
`
`that Plaintiffs are the sole authors of the Second Script. Taking all of Plaintiffs’ allegations as
`
`true, the Second Amended Complaint itself alleges facts indicating that Mr. Doyle made
`
`copyrightable contributions to the Second Script. “Copyright protection subsists . . . in original
`
`works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. . . .” 16 Casa Duse, LLC v.
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 11 of 14
`
`Merkin, 791 F.3d 247, 256 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)). The Second Amended
`
`Complaint alleges that “Mr. Doyle assisted Plaintiffs in drafting” the Second Script (SAC ¶ 4),
`
`and that Mr. Doyle “revis[ed],” “adapt[ed],” “develop[ed],” and “contributed” to the “‘Untitled
`
`Wyoming Project’s’ script, characters, scenes, setting, stage direction, or dialog” (id. ¶ 79).
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs specifically allege that Mr. Doyle wrote down his contributions to the Second
`
`Script “in the form of two draft scripts and a format Bible.” (See id. ¶¶ 80, 83.) These alleged
`
`facts defeat Plaintiffs’ conclusory claims of sole authorship.
`
`That the Second Amended Complaint also alleges that these contributions “were
`
`done at Plaintiffs’ explicit direction” (SAC ¶ 79) does not alter this conclusion. For substantially
`
`the same reasons that the Court’s Order explained in its analysis of nearly identical allegations
`
`regarding Plaintiffs’ contributions to the First Script, Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their
`
`contributions to the Second Script in the Second Amended Complaint are “vague and devoid of
`
`any factual detail about the scope of their responsibility and how that responsibility relates to the
`
`language used in the actual written work.” (Order at 9.) The Second Amended Complaint, like
`
`the First Amended Complaint before it, alleges that Plaintiffs “authored,” “created,”
`
`“introduced,” “dictated,” or “were responsible for” characters and character motivations,
`
`settings, action, dialogue, plot points, camera angles, wardrobes, and backstories in the Second
`
`Script. (SAC ¶¶ 86-117.) Yet again, as Defendant observed, the Court’s review of the Second
`
`Script attached as Exhibit B to the Second Amended Complaint “reveals that many of the
`
`elements Plaintiffs claim to have ‘authored’ or ‘dictated’ amounted to broad conceptions or ideas
`
`for the Work that are not copyrightable” and required substantial expansion to transform into a
`
`viable screenplay. (Docket entry no. 57 (“Def. Mem.”) at 8 (quoting Order at 9).) Because
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege that they translated any broad conceptions or ideas into “tangible
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 12 of 14
`
`medium[s] of expression,” their vague allegations do not support their claim of sole authorship
`
`of the Second Script. Merkin, 791 F.3d at 256.
`
`Therefore, even construing all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the
`
`Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege their sole
`
`authorship of the Second Script. The Court grants Mr. Doyle’s motion to dismiss Count One of
`
`the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`Count II: Copyright Infringement
`
`Plaintiffs also assert a claim for copyright infringement against Mr. Doyle,
`
`arguing that they own a “valid copyright of ‘Untitled Wyoming Project’[,]” and that Mr. Doyle
`
`unlawfully “copied Plaintiffs’ original expression from the copyrighted work when he submitted
`
`his application for a copyright to the U.S. Copyright Office and when he pitched the Work to
`
`talent agencies, including ‘Zero Gravity Management.’” (SAC ¶¶ 145-48). Plaintiffs also claim
`
`that Mr. Gentile’s “continued refusal to cancel the October 9, 2020 copyright registration, and
`
`cease the pitching of [the Second Script] to talent agencies after being given notice by Plaintiffs
`
`that such refusal infringes on Plaintiffs’ rights constitutes” copyright infringement. (Id. ¶ 150.)
`
`It is well established that “coauthors cannot sue one another for copyright
`
`infringement.” Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court has already
`
`concluded that, even construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Second Amended
`
`Complaint fails to plausibly allege Plaintiffs’ sole authorship of the Untitled Wyoming Project—
`
`and instead alleges that Mr. Doyle made creative contributions to the script and fixed his work
`
`product in written form, such that at least some aspects of the Second Script are his own
`
`copyrightable work. In other words, because the Second Amended Complaint identifies Mr.
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 13 of 14
`
`Doyle’s independently copyrightable contributions to the Second Script, the Court also finds that
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for copyright infringement.
`
`To avoid this inevitable conclusion, Plaintiffs dedicate most of their brief to
`
`arguing that (1) they co-authored the First Script with Ms. Crededio, and (2) Mr. Doyle did not
`
`receive written permission from Ms. Crededio to register a copyright in the Second Script.
`
`Plaintiffs concede that “they did not register” a copyright in the First Script that they allege to
`
`have co-authored with Ms. Crededio, but they clarify that their theory is that, because “Mr.
`
`Doyle did not receive proper permission to register” the Second Script, “his copyright in the
`
`[Second Script] is not valid, and his efforts to shop the [Second Script] infringe Plaintiffs’
`
`copyright of the [Second Script].” (Pl. Mem. at 15 n.1.) This theory, however, cannot support
`
`their claim for copyright infringement. The “central contention – that a derivative work[] cannot
`
`be protected by copyright without the permission of the original copyright owner – is a
`
`contention [with] no basis in law.” Poppington, LLC v. Brooks, No. 20-CV-8616-JSR, 2021 WL
`
`3193023, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also
`
`Keeling v. New Rock Theater Prods., LLC, No. 10-cv-9345-TPG, 2011 WL 1899762, at *1
`
`(S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2011) (“[N]owhere is it stated that the creator of a derivative work cannot
`
`copyright the new portions of that derivative work without permission from the creator of the
`
`original work.”). In other words, it does not matter whether Plaintiffs co-authored the First
`
`Script with Ms. Crededio, or whether Ms. Crededio gave Mr. Doyle valid permission to register
`
`a copyright in the Second Script; Mr. Doyle did not need permission from the owners of the First
`
`Script to copyright the Second Script. The Court thus concludes that, because the Second
`
`Amended Complaint fails to allege enough facts to support Plaintiffs’ claim of sole authorship,
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-08528-LTS-OTW Document 80 Filed 01/02/24 Page 14 of 14
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege copyright infringement, and the Court grants Mr.
`
`Doyle’s motion to dismiss Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Doyle’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended
`
`Complaint is granted in its entirety and each of the claims asserted therein is dismissed with
`
`prejudice. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves docket entry no. 56. Mr. Doyle’s
`
`counterclaims remain pending, and this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Wang for
`
`general pretrial management.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`January 2, 2024
`
` /s/ Laura Taylor Swain
`LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`GENTILE - MTD SAC
`
`VERSION JANUARY 2, 2024
`
`14
`
`