## 1

09-0187-cv Hudson v. Universal Studios, Inc.



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

RULI NGS BY SU MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HAVE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T . C ITA TIO N T O ASU MMARY ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMI TTE D AND IS GOV ERN ED BY F EDE RAL RULE OF A PPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32.1 AN D T HIS CO URT ’ S L OCA L RULE 32.1.1. W HEN CI TIN G ASU MMA RY ORD ER IN A D OCU MEN T F ILE D W ITH TH IS COU RT , A PAR TY MUST CITE EITH ER THE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X O R AN ELE CTR ONI C D ATABAS E ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). APA RTY CI TIN G ASU MMARY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PA RTY NO T R EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 

## 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

## 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

## 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

## 4 New York, on the 16 day of March, two thousand and ten. th 

## 5 6 PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, 

## 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 

## 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

## 9 Circuit Judges . 

## 10 11 12 13 GREGORY L. HUDSON, 

## 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant , 

## 16 17 -v.- 09-0187-cv 

## 18 19 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, INC., 

## 20 UNIVERSAL PICTURES, INC., 

## 21 IMAGINE FILMS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 

## 22 23 Defendants

- Appellees. 

## 24 25 26

## 2 

## 1 FOR APPELLANT : GREGORY L. HUDSON, pro se, Springfield 

## 2 Gardens, NY. 

## 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: RICHARD DANNAY, THOMAS KJELLBERG, Cowan, 

## 5 Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY 

## 6 7 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

## 8 Southern District of New York (Lynch, J. ). 

## 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

## 11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

## 12 AFFIRMED . 

## 13 Appellant Gregory L. Hudson (“Appellant”), pro se , 

## 14 appeals from a judgment of the district court granting the 

## 15 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing 

## 16 his claims for breach of implied contract, copyright 

## 17 infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 

## 18 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117 and 1125(a). He also moves to reverse the 

## 19 district court’s July 2009 order awarding the Defendants 

## 20 $38,904.80 in costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 

## 21 U.S.C. § 505. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

## 22 underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and 

## 23 the issues on appeal. 

## 24 We review orders granting summary judgment de novo , and 

## 25 focus on whether the district court properly concluded that 

## 26 there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the 

## 27 moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## 3 

## 1 See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 

## 2 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine 

## 3 issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all 

## 4 ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of 

## 5 the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry 

## 6 v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal 

## 7 quotation marks omitted). 

## 8 Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court 

## 9 properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants because 

## 10 no reasonable jury could have found that the Defendants’ 

## 11 motion picture is substantially similar to Appellant’s play. 

## 12 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment 

## 13 for substantially the same reasons as those articulated by 

## 14 that court. We have considered all of Appellant’s remaining 

## 15 claims of error and find them to be without merit. 

## 16 In addition, because Appellant never filed a timely 

## 17 notice of appeal from the district court’s July 2009 order 

## 18 awarding attorneys’ fees to the Defendants, and because any 

## 19 notice of appeal would now be untimely, Appellant’s motion 

## 20 with respect to those fees is denied. 

## 21 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

## 22 court is hereby AFFIRMED .

## 4 

## 1 2 FOR THE COURT: 

## 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

## 4 5