N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GER ALD M OR

AW SKI, a n individua l, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,
v. LIGHTSTOR

M ENTER T AINM ENT, INC ., a C a lifornia

c orpora tion; JAM ES C AM ER ON, a

n individua l, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55227 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-10294-M M M
JC G
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M a rga re t M
. M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SENTELLE, ** C HR ISTEN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ge ra ld M ora wski a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt on his bre a c h of e xpre ss c ontra c t, bre a c h of im p lie d -in-fa c t c ontra c t, a

n d fraud c l a im s a ga i nst 

# F IL ED
APR 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Da vid B ry a n Se nte lle , Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Distric t of C olum bia C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.Lightstorm Ente rta inm e n t, Inc
. a nd Ja m e s C a m e ron. W e ha v e j urisdic t ion u nde r 2 8 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd a ffirm
. 1 . “ Wh en inte rpre t ing sta te la w, we a re bound to follow t he d e c isions of the sta te ’ s highe s t c ourt. W he n the sta te s upre m e co urt ha s not spoke n on a n issue , we
m ust de te rm ine wha t re sul t th e c ourt would re a c h ba se d on s ta te a ppe lla te c ourt opinions, sta

t ute s a nd tre a tise s .” Paulson v . C ity o f San Die go , 294 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th C ir. 2 002) (e n ba

n c ) (c i ta tion om i tte d) (quoting He w itt v . J oy ne r , 940 F.2d 1561, 1565 (9th C ir. 1991)) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d ). 2. W e a s s u m e i n t

he c onte xt of our re v ie w of the distric t c ourt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt that e vide n ce o f a c c e ss a n d substa n tia l sim ila

rity ga ve rise to a

n infe re nc e that C a m e ron use d M ora w ski’ s origina l ide a s in the film Av atar . S e e Be nay v . W

arne r Bros. Entm’t, Inc

. , 607 F.3d 620, 630–31 (9th C ir. 2010). B ut C a m e ron pre se nte d de ta ile d a nd c o pious e vide nc e of inde pe nde n t c re a tion. Unde r C a lifor n ia la w, if a de fe nda n t pre se n t s “ c le a

r” a nd “ p o s i t i v e” e vide nc e o f inde pe nde nt c re a tion, a ny i n f er en ce of use of a nothe r’ s work a rising from a c c e ss a n d substa n tia l sim ila

rity is dis p e lle d, a nd a pla intiff m a y no longe r sole ly re ly on t ha t infe re n c e to e sta

blish im prope r use . Spinne r v . A m . B r o ad

. Co s., Inc

. , 155 C a l. R ptr. 3d 32, 42 (C t. App. 2013); se e also K

ightlinge r v . W

hite , No. B 210802, 2009 W L 4022193, a t *9–10 (C a l. C t. App. Nov. 23, 2 009) (unpublishe d); Holly w ood Sc re e n te st of Am., Inc

. v . N

BC 2Univ e rsal, Inc

. , 60 C a l. R ptr. 3d 279, 291–92 (C t. App. 2007). B e c a use M ora wski
re lie s e ntire ly

on the infe re nc e he re , his c ontra c t c la im fa i ls. 3. “ [I] t is we l l se ttle d tha t a n a c tion ba se d on a n i m pl i ed

- in

- f a c t or qua s ic ontra c t c a nnot lie whe re the re e xists be twe e n the pa rtie s a va lid e xpre ss c ontra c t
c ove ring the sa m e subje c t m a tte r.” Lanc e C ampe r Mfg. C

orp. v . Re public Inde m. C

o . , 44 C a l. App. 4th 194, 203 (1996). M ora wski’s i m pl i ed -in-fa c t c ontra c t c la im fa ils be c a use ne i the r pa

rty dispute s the e xiste nc e of a va lid e xpre ss c ontra c t. 4. M ora wski’ s fraud c la im fa ils be c a use of the a

bse n c e of a ffirm a tive e vide nc e of an i n te nt to de fraud a t t he tim e of c ontra c t form a tion. Se e Te nze r v . Supe rsc ope , Inc

. , 702 P.2d 212, 219 (C a l. 1985). AFFIRM E D
.

3Moraw

sk i v . Lightstorm Ente

r tainme nt, Inc

. , No. 13-55227 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the portion of the

c ourt’ s disposition a ffirm ing the d istric t c o urt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt ruling on the

issue of inde pe nde nt c re a tion. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, a n infe re nc e of use m a y

be re b utte d by

“ e vide nc e of inde pe nde nt c re a tion tha

t is ‘ c le a r, positive , unc o ntra dic t e d a n d of suc h a na ture that it c a nnot ra

tiona lly be disbe lie ve d.’ ” Spinne r v . Am. Broad. C os. , 155 C a l. R ptr. 3d 32, 42 (C t. App. 2013). In m y vie w, c onte ste d issue s of fa c t pre c lude d
re solution of inde

pe nde nt c re a tion in this c a s e , a t le a s t a t the sum m a ry judgm e nt sta ge . I would re ve rse this portion of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a n d re m a n d for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# F IL ED
APR 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1