IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WIZKIDS CREATIONS CO., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-4358

 v. :

:

C.B.S. INC. and :

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING :

SERVICES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this ____ day of ______________, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED

that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint of defendant Columbia Broadcasting Services,

Inc. is hereby GRANTED and plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is

additionally ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $___________ for violating this

Court’s Orders of April 18, 1992 in Hackney v. Sands Hotel & Casino (No. 92-0421) and April

25, 1997 in Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis (No. 97-1015).

________________________________

Brody, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WIZKIDS CREATIONS CO., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-4358

 v. :

:

C.B.S. INC. and :

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING :

SERVICES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant, Columbia Broadcasting Services, Inc., by its undersigned counsel,

hereby moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss

plaintiffs’ Complaint, and avers in support thereof as follows:

1. The Complaint in this case, bearing the name of the nominal plaintiff,

WizKids Creations Co., was filed by Larry Hackney. Hackney, who signed the Complaint and

refers to himself throughout the Complaint as the owner of the copyright that he has placed in

issue is the real party in interest. WizKids, to the extent it exists, has no discernible interest in

the copyright.

2. Judge Bechtle on April 18, 1992 and Judge Yohn on April 25, 1997,

barred Hackney from filing any complaint based on the copyright without specific attachments

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 2 of 17
2

and prior court approval. Hackney has failed to make the appropriate attachments and did not

seek permission from the Court before filing, as he has been directed to do.

3. Even applying liberal pleading standards applicable to a pro se complaint,

the Complaint states no cause of action on which relief can be granted.

4. Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim is meritless. In particular,

plaintiff has failed to make any allegations regarding an essential element of the copyright claim:

copying by defendants.

5. Plaintiff may also be attempting to state a “failure to report” claim based

on his asserted attempts to interest defendants in covering what he perceives as the “judicial

blunders” he has been exposed to. That claim does not exist in law.

WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the

Complaint with prejudice and impose sanctions on plaintiff for his violation of the Orders of this

Court.

Dated: September 24, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

Gayle Chatilo Sproul

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Defendants

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 3 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WIZKIDS CREATIONS CO., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-4358

 v. :

:

C.B.S. INC. and :

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING :

SERVICES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff WizKids Creations Co. has filed a rambling and nearly incomprehensible

Complaint attempting to allege that defendants CBS Inc. and Columbia Broadcasting Services,

Inc. (“CBS”) infringed or aided in the infringement of a copyright in a “public transportation

system” -- the so-called “Flying Carpet 1975 Hackney” -- by permitting a structure that may

resemble the Flying Carpet to appear on television in the background of a weather report. The

act of filing that Complaint is in violation of two injunctions of this Court barring Larry Hackney

-- the copyright holder, author and signatory of the Complaint and self-described “owner of

WizKids Creations” -- from filing any complaint related to the Flying Carpet copyright without

prior Court approval.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 4 of 17
2

The Complaint is thus barred by orders of this Court and it is, in any event,

baseless. Even granting plaintiff every benefit of the doubt accorded to a pro se complainant, no

cause of action can be made out. Therefore, CBS respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In addition, given Hackney’s violation of the standing injunctions

which prohibit him from filing this Complaint, defendants respectfully seek the imposition of

sanctions against him.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. The Copyrighted Work

Plaintiff refers to the copyrighted work at issue here as “Flying Carpet 1975

Hackney.” Complaint, p.1. He refers to and attaches the Certificate of Registration to the

Complaint, which reveals that the copyright is registered in the name of Larry Hackney and that

the nature of the work is a “public transportation system.” See Copyright Registration No. Iu

17381, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

To understand what the Flying Carpet is, it is necessary for the Court to look to

decisions by other judges of this Court, who have described the copyrighted device. Judge Yohn

described it as follows:

[T]he “@Flying Carpet,” which received an official copyright in

1975, is apparently a scale model of an elevated conveyor belt

system. The model is 13 inches high and 20 inches long and is

suspended in the air by ten inch poles. It seems that by turning a

hand operated crank, objects can be carried along the length of the

unit by a rubber band conveyor belt. The conveyor belt is encased,

so as to create a “tube” through which the conveyor belt runs.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 5 of 17
3

Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, No. 97-1015, 1997 WL 214846, * 1 (E.D.P.A.) (Yohn, J.);

see also Hackney v. Sands Hotel & Casino, No. 92-0421, 1992 WL 97335. Copies of these

opinions are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Apparently, in large scale, the device was designed to

be a “people mover.” Id.

II. The Injunctions

Plaintiff is a prolific litigant who has brought numerous lawsuits (including an

earlier one against CBS) stemming from what he alleges is copyright infringement of the Flying

Carpet. See Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, supra; Hackney v. Sands Hotel & Casino,

supra at *2, 3 & n.2 (citing the many previous copyright infringement cases brought by plaintiff

for which there are no published opinions: Hackney v. Sands Hotel and Casino, No. 88-5205

(E.D.P.A. Jan. 5, 1989) (O’Neill, J.), app. dismissed by Third Circuit as frivolous; Hackney v.

Sands Hotel and Casino, No. 89-7434 (E.D.P.A. Oct. 19, 1989) (O’Neill, J.), app. dismissed by

Third Circuit as frivolous; Hackney v. U.S. News & World Report, No. 89-9228 (E.D.P.A.);

Hackney v. CBS., No. 89-8894 (E.D.P.A. Mar. 29, 1990) (O’Neill, J.); No. 90-1712 (E.D.P.A.),

dismissed (O’Neill, J.), app. dismissed by Third Circuit as frivolous; No. 91-1126 (E.D.P.A),

dismissed (Hutton, J.), app. dismissed as frivolous, 945 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1991)). Judge

O’Neill’s opinion in Hackney v. CBS is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

From these opinions, it appears that Mr. Hackney’s claims stem from his belief

that a moving escalator or sidewalk installed in or near at least one Atlantic City casino and hotel

illegally copied his Flying Carpet. He has also sued because he believed depictions of other

moving stairs or escalators -- such as those appearing in an animated “Peanuts” movie broadcast

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 6 of 17
4

by CBS in 1985 (entitled “Bon Voyage Charlie Brown . . . and Don’t Come Back”) also infringe

that copyright. Ex. C. In every case, the judges of this Court have found that Mr. Hackney’s

copyright claims are without merit.

In view of the cascade of meritless filings by Mr. Hackney in connection with the

Flying Carpet, Judge Bechtle entered the following injunction:

[P]laintiff may not file any copyright infringement actions against

any party relating to the “People Mover” without leave from this

court. In seeking leave of court, plaintiff must certify that the

claims he wishes to present are new claims, never before raised

and disposed of on the merits by any federal court. Upon a failure

to certify or upon a false certification, plaintiff may be found in

contempt of court and punished accordingly. Plaintiff must also

submit under oath a statement setting forth each and every fact he

would present at trial supporting his claim of infringement.

Hackney v. Sands Hotel & Casino, supra, * 1.

Undeterred by Judge Bechtle’s order, Hackney brought yet another action without

filing the required addenda to the complaint. See Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, supra.

Judge Yohn dismissed the case on the merits, but declined to hold Hackney in contempt of court

for his violation of Judge Bechtle’s order. Id., *3. Judge Yohn said that it was possible that

Hackney had “misinterpreted” Judge Bechtle’s order “by concluding that he was entitled to bring

the same claims against different defendants.” Id. In light of that possibility, Judge Yohn wrote:

I will now make it clear to Hackney that he is not to file any

copyright infringement actions against any defendant for any

claims for copyright infringement of his ‘Flying Carpet’ without

prior authorization of the court.

Id. at *3 (emphasis in original). He then entered the following order:

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 7 of 17
5

Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any complaint against any

person, corporation or other entity for any claims alleging

copyright infringement of the “@Flying Carpet” without first

seeking authorization of the court in which the plaintiff seeks to

file. In seeking such authorization, the defendant shall abide by

the order of this court in Hackney v. Sands Hotel & Casino, Civ.

No. 92-421. In addition to the certification required by that order,

the defendant shall attach to any such complaint a copy of this

order and accompanying memorandum, a copy of the

memorandum and order of this court in Civil Action No. 92-421,

dated April 28, 1992, a copy of the complaint filed in this case, and

a copy of the complaint filed in Civil Action No. 92-421. If

plaintiff fails to abide by the terms of this order, and the order of

this court dated April 28, 1992 in Civil Action No. 902-421, he

may be found in contempt of court and punished accordingly.

Id. at *4.

Defendants have found no reference in the reported decisions to any further

actions by Hackney based on the copyright, until this one.

III. The Complaint

In filing this Complaint, Hackney has failed to comply with the orders of Judge

Bechtle and Judge Yohn. He has attached to this Complaint neither the required court orders,

complaints, certifications or statements under oath. What Hackney has done is to attempt to

change the identity of the plaintiff to WizKids Creations Co., apparently to avoid the dictates of

the injunctions. However, Hackney defeats his own ploy by admitting in the first paragraph of

the Complaint that “I/Larry Hackney owner of WizKids Creations Co. is the owner of the

copyright . . . .” He repeatedly refers to himself as the “owner” in the Complaint: “the

defendants actions in showing the work in question alienates and alienated; me as owner . . .” (p.

1); the mayor of Atlantic City “allowed licensing to go forward for approval with my name as

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 8 of 17
6

owner of the work in question omitted from all documentations” (p.2); “my certified work” (p.3),

and the like. Moreover, the copyright registration form for Copyright No. Iu 17381 that he has

attached shows that Hackney is indeed the owner of the copyright. Ex. A. Hackney also signed

the Complaint on his own behalf as “plaintiff.”

In the Complaint, Hackney renews his allegation that there is in Atlantic City a

moving sidewalk that is an infringement or a “derivative infringing copy of [his] certified work”

(Complaint, p.2) and now claims that a weather segment of a newscast broadcast from Atlantic

City, appearing on a local CBS station, infringed his copyright because it allegedly showed that

infringing structure in the background. Complaint, p.2. He devotes much of his four-page

single-spaced complaint to this perceived illegality. For example, he alleges that “[d]efendants

have brought the same infringing, uncertified ‘reproduction’ copy to the ‘general public’ by their

telecast of [his] work called Flying Carpet 1975 Hackney”; defendants “transmitted the certified

registered works ‘form of expression’ in whole combination in their weather segment called the

12:o’clock NEWS, on June 1, 2002”; and defendants were repeatedly advised that “the showing

would alienate [Hackney] the true conceptor, titlar and copyright holder . . . .” Id., pp. 1-2.

Hackney also cites numerous sections of the copyright law which he appears to believe have

been violated. Id., pp. 2-3.

In addition, Hackney protests that defendants took no action when he showed

them “life size pictures of the derivative copy,” even when he “repeatedly left correspondence

asking them to look in on it, with the possibility of bringing me forward vs. Judicially Flawed

decision vs. copyrighted registered principals . . . .” Complaint, p.2. He cites “astronomical

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 9 of 17
7

retainers” that apparently prevented him from taking steps to enforce rights he believed were

violated; he seems to have expected defendants to help him in some way. Hackney alleges that

his “only alternative was television coverage to tell America the whole story” and that Hackney

“wanted to give the defendant the first opportunity in breaking the whole story. Giving them

permission to shoot the story and evidence, would prove the ‘judicial blunder’ on T.V. . . .” Id.

However, in Hackney’s view, defendants refused to help him and then illegally showed the

allegedly infringing structure -- already standing in full public view -- to a viewing audience.

Based on this, plaintiff seeks $6.5 million and injunctive relief.

ARGUMENT

I. The Complaint was Filed in Violation of Two

 Standing Injunctions and Should be Dismissed.

As noted, the Complaint, filed ostensibly on behalf of a company called WizKids

Creations Co., is actually filed on behalf of Hackney. Hackney mentions his own name at the

outset of the complaint, admitting in the first paragraph that “I/Larry Hackney is the owner of

WizKids Creations Co., is the owner of the copyright . . . .” He also refers to himself as the

“owner” of the copyright throughout the Complaint. In fact, Hackney, not WizKids, is the owner

of the copyright, as the attachment to the Complaint makes clear. Ex. A. Indeed, WizKids is

never referred to again in the Complaint or described in any way.1

 The entire Complaint is

written in the first person by Hackney and it is signed by Hackney as “Plaintiff”; he also refers to

 

1

 The words “WizKids Creations” and “WizKids 2000” appear on three of the drawings that Hackney has

inserted as attachments to the Complaint. It is not clear when these notations were made; all that is clear is

that Hackney is the holder of the copyright.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 10 of 17
8

himself under the signature line as “Copyright Owner” and “Artist.” Moreover, Hackney, not his

company, sought and have been given IFP status here.2

 Hence, the real plaintiff in interest here

is clearly Larry Hackney, the subject of the two injunctions.

In any event, even if the Court were to credit Hackney’s assertion of an artificial

person as plaintiff, it is clear that he, as “owner” of the company, has “filed” this copyright

infringement suit based on the Flying Carpet.

Therefore, Hackney was obliged to follow this Court’s orders before filing this

Complaint for copyright infringement. In particular, Hackney’s statement “setting forth each and

every fact he would present at trial supporting his claim of infringement” would be extremely

useful here, where it is highly likely that Hackney will be collaterally estopped from raising his

copyright claim.

Since Hackney has failed to attach that statement, or any of the other prerequisites

directed by the Orders, defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint and

enter sanctions against Hackney as the Court deems just.

II. The Complaint Fails To State A Claim

On Which Relief Can Be Granted.

Apart from its failure to comply with the standing orders of this Court, the

Complaint contains no cause of action for which relief can be granted. The rule that complaints

 

2

 Moreover, if WizKids is a corporation, which is not clear from the Complaint, it may not proceed pro se.

See, e.g., Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966); Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc.

v. Metro Distributing, Inc., 1993 WL 481555, *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 1993).

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 11 of 17
9

by pro se litigants are to be liberally construed (see, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972);

Henderson v. Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115, 1120 (3d Cir. 1980)) provides plaintiff with no solace here,

since there is no rational construction of the Complaint that could afford relief.

A. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for copyright infringement.

First, no cognizable copyright infringement claim emerges from any reading of

the Complaint. A copyright plaintiff must prove two elements to prevail: ownership of a

copyrighted work and copying by the defendant. See, e.g., Dam Things from Denmark v. Russ

Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 548, 561 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental

Lab Co., 797 F.2d 1222, 1231 (3d Cir. 1986)). Copying is demonstrated by showing that the

defendant’s work is “substantially similar” to the plaintiff’s. The test for whether works are

substantial similar “is whether an ordinary lay observer would detect a substantial similarity

between the works.” Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, supra, *1 (quoting Universal Athletic

Sales v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir.), cert denied sub nom. Universal Athletic Sales Co.

v. Pinchock, 423 U.S. 863 (1975)).

Plaintiff here fails to make any allegations that would support an infringement

claim. First, if the Court were to credit plaintiff’s assertion that WizKids is anything more than a

nominal plaintiff, the copyright claim must be dismissed because WizKids does not hold the

copyright. Hence, WizKids has no copyright claim that can be compensated here.

Second, there has been no copying by CBS of Hackney’s copyrighted work and

there is none alleged. At the outset, it must be noted that the copyright is not in an illustration, it

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 12 of 17
10

is in a “public transportation device.” As Judge O’Neill pointed out when plaintiff sued CBS

the last time for depicting something akin to his drawing of a people mover in a broadcast of an

animated “Peanuts” movie, plaintiff apparently does not understand that copyright law does not

protect the idea embodied in his Flying Carpet. Ex. C, Slip Op. at 4.3

The previous opinions issued in this Court were substantive rulings on Hackney’s

copyright infringement claims based on structures built in Atlantic City, and all of those opinions

were decided against him. See Hackney v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, supra; Hackney v. Sands

Hotel & Casino, supra (and cases cited therein). To the extent that Hackney is basing this case

on the infringing nature of any structure that was the subject of his earlier cases, he is precluded

from renewing the claim of infringement here, no matter what the guise. Hackney has

apparently attempted to repackage his old copyright infringement claim -- now basing it on the

broadcast of an infringing work as opposed to basing it on the infringing work alone -- in the

hope of a different result. But the outcome here must be the same as in his previous lawsuits.

If Hackney is attempting to make out a claim of contributory infringement against

CBS based on his belief that the structure appearing as a backdrop in the weathercast is

substantially similar to his own illustrations for his model people mover, his claim must fail

because, before there can be contributory infringement, there must be a finding of infringement.

 

3

 Judge O’Neill pointed out that Hackney’s misunderstanding may stem from confusion between patent law

and copyright law:

Apparently, plaintiff believes that his copyright protects the idea embodied in

the “flying carpet” illustration. This understanding is incorrect. “The protection

of ideas, per se, must be found, if at all, within the confines of patent law.”

Id. at 4-5 (citations omitted).

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 13 of 17
11

See, e.g., Metzke v. May Department Stores Co., 878 F. Supp. 756, 760 (W.D. Pa. 1995) (citing

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 526 (1972); Cable/Home

Communication v. Network Productions, 902 F.2d 829, 845 (11th Cir. 1990); 3 DAVID NIMMER

& MELVILLE NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHTS § 12.04 [A][2][b], at 12.81 (1994). To the

extent that Hackney is relying for the predicate finding of infringement on structures this Court

has already ruled are not infringing, there can be no finding of contributory infringement.4

But even if plaintiff is relying on a new allegedly infringing structure as the basis

of his claim -- and it is not possible to determine this from his Complaint -- it is nevertheless

clear that the structure depicted in the two photographs he attaches to the Complaint is not even

remotely similar to the sketches he also attaches to his Complaint. Hackney has attached two

photographs that he calls “Defendants Summoned Reproduction Shot,” which appear to show a

walkway both in close up and at a distance. Plaintiff may have attached these photographs in the

hope of showing substantial similarity between the structure in the backdrop of the weathercast

and his illustrations, but these photographs provide no support for such a claim. Indeed, they

prove the opposite: the walkway depicted bears no resemblance to any of the sketches plaintiff

attaches to the Complaint. In the words of Universal Athletic Sales, no “ordinary lay observer

would detect a substantial similarity between the works.” 511 F.2d at 907.

Finally, if Hackney is attempting to allege that CBS is liable for infringing his

right of public display or “performance” of his copyrighted people mover -- or his model or

 

4 Hackney’s suggestion that CBS somehow “knew” that he viewed the Atlantic City structure or structures as

infringing is irrelevant.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 14 of 17
12

illustrations of the people mover -- by depicting in its broadcast a work whose copyright he does

not own, he still has no basis for his claim. Simply put, CBS did not, even allegedly, display his

work and so could not have infringed his copyright in it.5

In sum, Hackney’s reasoning is both tortured and futile: he hinges his case

against CBS on an alleged broadcast of a patently non-infringing work that is freely seen

everyday by countless passersby, built by a third party, and without any alleged involvement by

CBS. This theory simply cannot support any copyright infringement claim against CBS.

Therefore, defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6).

B. No claim exists for failure to report.

Finally, in the event the Complaint is read to assert a claim based on a failure by

CBS to report on the “judicial blunder” he thinks he has suffered, no such claim is recognized by

the law.

 

5

 Plaintiff may conceivably be attempting to squeeze himself into an exception to a narrow line of cases

applicable where a copyrighted artistic work is used in the backdrop of a movie or other public

performance. Those decisions, which hold such a “de minimis” use of the actual copyrighted work is a fair

use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107, are totally inapposite here. See, e.g., Sandoval v. New Line Cinema

Corp., 147 F.3d 215, 216 (2d Cir. 1998) (plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs present in scene of apartment

for 90 seconds in 11 camera shots; “the photographs never appear in focus, and except for two of the shots,

are seen in the distant background, often obstructed from view by one of the actors,” held: fair use); see

also Jackson v. Warner Bros., 44 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1603 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (plaintiff’s paintings appear for 60

seconds as background in living room of character, held: fair use). Plaintiff’s claim of infringement here,

based as it is on defendants’ purported display of the work of someone else, albeit a work that he claims

infringes his own, is light years removed from these cases.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 15 of 17
13

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has flagrantly violated two standing injunctions barring him

from filing complaints asserting any claim based on his copyright in the Flying Carpet against

any party without first complying with a number of prerequisites, defendants respectfully submit

that this Complaint should be dismissed and plaintiff should be sanctioned. Moreover, since

there is no basis at all for a copyright infringement claim or any other claim, even giving the

Complaint the most liberal construction possible, the Complaint is baseless and should be

dismissed.

Dated: September 24, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

Gayle Chatilo Sproul

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Defendant

Columbia Broadcasting Services, Inc.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 16 of 17
789304.8.50 09/24/02 2:38 PM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date caused a copy of the Motion to Dismiss of

Defendant Columbia Broadcasting Services, Inc. and all accompanying documents to be served

by first-class mail upon the plaintiff pro se as follows:

WizKids Creations Co.

c/o Larry Hackney

5422 Chester Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19143

Dated: September 24, 2002 ___________________________

Gayle Chatilo Sproul

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 9 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 17 of 17