Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40873/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40873-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 

---

REVISED August 23, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40873

DONNA WEST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TYLER PERRY, Doing Business as Tyler Perry Company;

LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; TYLER PERRY COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CV-200

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 23, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 09-40873 Document: 00511211810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2010
No. 09-40873

Donna West sued Tyler Perry and his distributor, alleging that his movie

copied elements of a play she had written and performed at a location where Perry later worked before becoming commercially successful. A jury found in favor

of defendants. On appeal, West claims the district court erred in (1) granting

summary judgment to defendants on some of her state-law claims; (2) denying

her motion for a new trial; and (3) awarding costs to defendants for expedited

trial transcripts.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law, have consulted applicable

portions of the record, and have heard oral argument. There is no reversible

error.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on

West’s state-law claims of unfair competition and conversion, which are preempted by section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). E.g., Daboub

v. Gibbons, 42 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Even if they were not preempted,

they would be barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The

district court’s memorandum opinion explaining its denial is persuasive in showing that there was no absence of evidence to support the verdict.

There also was no error, and surely no reversible error, in the jury charge.

There was no error in the conditional refusal to allow introduction of West’s

copyright registration without presentation of the entire registration to the jury.

There is no reversible error, and surely no harmful error, occasioned by defense

counsel’s statements. Finally, there is no merit to West’s assertion that Perry’s

expert was not qualified.

West’s challenge to the cost of expedited transcripts is similarly unjustified. The district court is in the best position to judge the need for such transcripts.

The judgment, well grounded in the verdict, is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 09-40873 Document: 00511211810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2010