Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/2730343/Johnston-v-One-America-Productions-Inc-et-al-Document-No-21
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 06:36:59
Document Index: 161184675

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 28', 'ART-195']

Johnston v. One America Productions, Inc. et al - Document No. 21 | Complaint | Negligence
Johnston v. One America Productions, Inc. et al - Document No. 21Uploaded by Justia.comRelated InterestsComplaintNegligenceFirst Amendment To The United States ConstitutionDemurrerInterlocutory AppealRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: MOTION to Alter Judgment dated August 22, 2007 or, in the Alternative, to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C.View MoreMOTION to Alter Judgment dated August 22, 2007 or, in the Alternative, to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentJohnston v. One America Productions, Inc.et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION ELLEN JOHNSTON V. ONE AMERICA PRODUCTIONS, INC., EVERYMAN PICTURES, TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1 AND 2 PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:07CV42 WAP-EMB
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 22, 2007 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CERTIFY THE ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND ENTRY OF A STAY Defendants One America Productions, Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation1 move, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to alter or amend the District Court’s Order dated August 22, 2007, granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In support, Defendants present the following: 1. Plaintiff Ellen Johnston alleges in her Complaint that Defendants One America
Productions, Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation “invaded Plaintiff’s privacy,” “portrayed Plaintiff in a false light,” “led [her] to believe that [Defendants’] camera crew was filming a ‘documentary,’” and “had no authority to show her in the film Borat.” She further alleges that “Defendants’ gross negligence constituted willful, wanton, and reckless disregard to Ms. Johnston’s right to privacy, for [their] own monetary profit,” for which Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 4-7 (March 19, 2007). ________________
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Everyman Productions, Inc. See Notice of Dismissal (June 1, 2007); Docket 6.
Defendants One America Productions, Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety because the factual allegations failed to state a claim.2 Defendants argued that Mississippi law recognizes four different privacy torts, and while the Complaint did not clearly articulate what type (or types) of privacy claims Johnston asserts, her Complaint failed to include the factual allegations necessary for recovery under any of the four privacy torts recognized in Mississippi when viewed in the light of the motion picture film itself. See Motion of Defendants’ to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (June 20, 2007); Docket 7. 3. Plaintiff argued that the “basis for the Plaintiff’s allegations against the Defendants is
that her right to privacy has been invaded” and that the “court does not have to look beyond the allegations of the Complaint to determine that a cognizable claim is asserted both factually and legally for invasion of privacy.” Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim etc. at pp. 3, 13 (July 3, 2007). Nowhere in opposing Defendants’ Motion did Plaintiff contend or suggest that her Complaint might survive Defendants’ Motion because she had alleged a separate claim for gross negligence. Id. 4. The District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Order (Aug. 22, 2007); Docket 18. The District Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s invasion of privacy claim premised upon intrusion upon seclusion and disclosure of private facts, but denied Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s invasion of privacy claim premised upon misappropriation of likeness for commercial gain and for false light. Id. ¶ 4-5. The District Court apparently read Plaintiff' demand for punitive damages s ______________________
See Motion of Defendants’ to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (June 20, 2007); Docket 7.
as a separate substantive claim rather than a remedy. Its Memorandum Opinion did not discuss how a "gross negligence" claim is cognizable under the facts alleged in the Complaint, but simply stated in the "Conclusion" that “defendants did not demonstrate that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for gross negligence.” Memorandum Opinion 15. 5. The Order’s finding that the Complaint alleges a claim for gross negligence is a
manifest injustice because the parties did not brief this issue. Nowhere did Plaintiff argue that she was asserting an independent substantive negligence claim. This finding also
constitutes a clear error of law: Mississippi does not recognize claims for negligence based on a creative or communicative work, such as a movie, entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. E.g., Mitchell v. Random House, Inc., 865 F.2d 664, 672 (5th Cir. 1989) ("the only decisions [in Mississippi] that have held that a written publication could form the basis for an action based on negligence involve instances of commercial speech"); accord, Pierce v. The Clarion-Ledger, 433 F. Supp. 2d 754 (S.D. Miss. 2006), aff'd, 2007 WL 1191724 (5th Cir. 2007). Any plaintiff who attempts to recover monetary damages based upon an expressive work about a matter of genuine public interest such as the motion picture film before the District Court must under the First Amendment allege, among other essential elements, that the published work contains statements about the plaintiff that are false or that are made with a reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. See, e.g., Time, Inc. v. Hill,
385 U.S. 374, 388-89 (1967); Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 1229-34 (7th Cir. 1993). To hold otherwise is to permit juries or judges to punish the publishers of such works for their opinions and their editorial decisions, which the First Amendment prohibits. Since Plaintiff does not allege that the film contains any false statements about her image or likeness and Plaintiff did not dispute this point in opposing Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss,
any attempt to salvage her gross negligence claim by further amendment would be futile and should not be allowed. Accordingly, the Order should be amended to dismiss any gross negligence claim found on the face of the Complaint. 6. The Order’s finding that the Complaint states a claim for false light invasion of
privacy represents a substantial departure from established Mississippi law. Specifically, the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion accompanying the Court’s Order, without acknowledging numerous state and federal court decisions to the contrary, allows Plaintiff’s subjective view of the portrayal of her in the film – what she “would believe others would believe” upon viewing the scene – to determine whether the portrayal is actionable. Further, the Opinion fails to mention or apply any of the substantive principles of Mississippi law that guide the courts in determining whether her false light claim is actionable. 7. In finding that the Complaint states a claim for commercial appropriation, the Order
and accompanying Memorandum Opinion also contain clear errors of law in failing to distinguish commercial speech, that is, speech that proposes a commercial transaction, from communicative speech and in failing to recognize that the use of the crowd scene at the public religious worship meeting where Plaintiff appears is an editorial decision clearly protected by the First Amendment. 8. In the alternative, if the District Court denies Defendant' Motion to Alter or Amend s
the Judgment, the Defendants respectfully request that the District Court enter an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certifying this case for interlocutory appeal. Certification is appropriate because the District Court' Memorandum Opinion involves controlling s questions of law about which there are substantial differences of opinions and an appeal from
the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 9. The District Court' opinion presents the following controlling questions of law about s
which there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion: 1. Does Mississippi law recognize an independent claim for gross negligence based on a mass media creative work such as a motion picture film? 2. In a false light privacy claim based on non-commercial mass media publication such as a motion picture film, does Mississippi law impose a subjective or an objective standard for determining whether the portrayal reasonably conveys the meaning urged and whether that meaning is highly offensive to a reasonable person? 3. Is there an appropriation of Plaintiff’s image for a commercial purpose from which Defendants derive a commercial or non-pecuniary benefit, or is the fleeting use of the Plaintiff’s image in a public crowd scene incidental to the film and thereby protected either under Mississippi law or the First Amendment? 10. An early resolution of these issues would help conserve substantial resources of the
federal courts and also avoid undue expense to the parties. 11. Defendants also rely on their accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is
incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Defendants One America Productions, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation respectfully request that their Motion to Alter or Amend the August 22, 2007 Order be granted; that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and costs assessed to Plaintiff; in the alternative only, that the Court certify the Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(b); that the case be stayed pending the Fifth Circuit’s
consideration of the Application for Leave to Appeal; and that they be granted any other general or special relief as may be appropriate. THIS, the 5th day of September, 2007. Respectfully submitted, ONE AMERICA PRODUCTIONS, INC., AND TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION s/ John C. Henegan John C. Henegan, MB No. 2286 Donna Brown Jacobs, MB No.8371 Attorneys for Defendants OF COUNSEL: BUTLER, SNOW, O' ARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC M th 17 Floor, AmSouth Plaza 210 East Capitol Street Post Office Box 22567 Jackson, MS 39225-2567 T: (601) 948-5711 F: (601) 985-4500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Henegan, one of the attorneys for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day filed the above and foregoing MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO ALTER OR AMEND THE DISTRICT COURT' ORDER DATED AUGUST 22, 2007 OR IN THE S ALTERNATIVE, TO CERTIFY THE ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL UNDER § 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) AND ENTRY OF A STAY with the Clerk of the Court via the Court' ECF System which served a true copy upon the following via the Court' ECF s s system: William O. Luckett, Jr. wol@lucketttyner.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF SO CERTIFIED, this the 5th day of September, 2007.
s/ John C. Henegan JOHN C. HENEGAN
Jackson 2308509v.1
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Johnston v. One America Productions, Inc. et al - Document No. 21Skip carouselWillie Turner Kurzweg v. Hotel St. Regis Corp., Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine and Marvin Lieber, 309 F.2d 746, 2d Cir. (1962)Parrish v. Cleveland, 4th Cir. (2004)06-00440Video Software Dealers Association et al v. Schwarzenegger et al - Document No. 29Boston Equity v CADanielle Dyer v. Dirty World, LLC - Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary JudgmentBerman v. OpenTVLara v. Department of The Air Force - Document No. 3Viacrucis v Estenzo DigestMaloney v. State of Michigan et al - Document No. 4Transcript Judge Barton 10.33 AM Nov 30 2007HUTTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RONNIE MOORE, and CHRISTOPHER SCHULTZ, and CIRKIEL AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Warner Bros. Ent., 1-11-CV-09436-ALC-HBP (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 15, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss trademark lawsuit based on faux bag in 'Hangover 2')John P. Parrish and Frances S. Parrish v. United States of America, James P. Boyle, Benjamin I. Sondac, A. Jackson Barden, Jr., and Kenneth E. McElroy, 376 F.2d 601, 4th Cir. (1967)4-30-15Robert Gwathmey and William Durham, Suing on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Town of East Hampton, John Henry Doyle, Chief of Police of the Town of East Hampton, George J. Aspland, District Attorney of Suffolk County, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of the State of New York, 437 F.2d 351, 2d Cir. (1970)Nov 28 Spencer Order to DismissPatel v. ChanJoseph C. Sun v. Oscar Tucker Chuck Williams Arthur Paul and Jerry Griswold, 946 F.2d 901, 10th Cir. (1991)Anthony Ort v. Dr. Pinchback Correctional Medical Systems Board of Corrections, 786 F.2d 1105, 11th Cir. (1986)Darrell E. Brown v. Csx Transportation, Incorporated, a Corporation, 18 F.3d 245, 4th Cir. (1994)Bobby L. Magwood v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2016)SRCSB Motion to Strike Two (of 85) Paragraphs in ComplaintMartin v. Atchison, T. & SFR Co., 166 U.S. 399 (1897)TAMIN vs CA312323908-sm-digest.docxConsent SEC v Goldman SachsStevens Contempt OpinionAMCO Insurance Company v. Lauren Spencer, Inc. et al - Document No. 938984784-Persons-ART-195-201.docDocuments About ComplaintSkip carouselAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.15NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Sage Kelly ComplaintPolygamy ruling in UtahComplaint - Huskins QuinnBill Cosby Civil Case FilesMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentCavanaugh v BarteltHarassment PolicyStarbuzz TobaccoGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Wells Fargo Loses Appeal Regarding Assignments"Bachelor" TV producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitNike v. Skechers8:15-cv-00158 #5 - Order DismissingMicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Motion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsFailure to Verify the Complaint Rule Change to Rule 1.110RHODES v MacDONALD - 17 - ORDER denying 15[RECAP] Motion for Stay of Deployment filed by Connie Rhodes. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0KrewEllaWWE preemptive lawsuit against Dynamite Kid, Koko B Ware, Blackjack Windham and Ivan KoloffSWA LawsuitLIBERI v TAITZ - 91 2009-08-03 TAITZ Motion for Rule 11 SanctionsTILA Rescission Success Without Tender - HENRY BOTELHO, Plaintiff, V. U.S. BANK, N.a., As Trustee for the LXS 2007-4N Trust, DefendantMotion to DismissDismissal Order in S.E.C. v. CohmadSinger AppealAppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29Picower's Response to Madoff Trustee, Seeking Dismissal of Case Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Documents About NegligenceSkip carouselStern TaxesFootball player Aaron Hernandez sued after shooting manCarroll ComplaintComplaint for damages, demand for jury trialMark-1 Plumbing, Inc. v. Charlie Thomas Ford, Ltd.Statement of claim in the lawsuit against Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, Jan. 29, 2014Hernandez 4Stephanie Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation Ron Zeller, and Werner Erhard Werner Erhard and Associates Peter Sias, 16 F.3d 410, 4th Cir. (1994)1:13-cv-01225 #93United States v. Benjamin N. Litman, 246 F.2d 206, 3rd Cir. (1957)Mrs. Agnes Humphries v. McCrory Stores Corporation, 358 F.2d 901, 4th Cir. (1966)Messer v. Amway Corporation, 10th Cir. (2004)City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 271 U.S. 489 (1926)Patricia Davidson, as Administratrix of the Estate of Alfred Davidson, Jr. And Patricia Davidson, Individually, and Tammy Davidson v. Hobart Corporation, David Newby, David Meeker, F. Douglas Houser and James J. Mischler, 643 F.2d 1386, 10th Cir. (1981)Carmelo Aliberti v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 936 F.2d 567, 4th Cir. (1991)National Surety Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Charles Carter & Company, Inc., Defendant-Third Party Cross-Appellant v. Maryland Casualty Co., Third Party Cross-Appellee, 621 F.2d 739, 3rd Cir. (1980)Elden R. Craven v. Southern Railway Company, 412 F.2d 835, 4th Cir. (1969)Judi Watson v. Balcor Property Management, Doing Business as Sun Ridge Apartments, 963 F.2d 383, 10th Cir. (1992)Lenore S. Raila, Whitton A. Raila v. United States, 355 F.3d 118, 2d Cir. (2004)Coombs v. Beyond Broadway Amended ComplaintChesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 U.S. 416 (1926)prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,714 Fernando Benitez and Alina Benitez, His Wife v. Standard Havens Products, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant/third Party, 7 F.3d 1561, 3rd Cir. (1993)David B. Lilly Company, Inc. v. G. Robert Fisher Smith, Gill, Fisher and Butts, a Missouri Professional Corporation Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft, a Partnership, David B. Lilly Company, Inc., in No. 93-7036, G. Robert Fisher Smith, Gill, Fisher and Butts, 18 F.3d 1112, 3rd Cir. (1994)Juisti v. Hyatt Hotel Corp MD, 4th Cir. (1996)John R. Evans v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Corporation, 398 F.2d 665, 3rd Cir. (1968)Continental Casualty Company v. P.D.C., Inc., Donald Craig Olsen, 931 F.2d 1429, 10th Cir. (1991)Fred Guegan v. The New York Central Railroad Company, 243 F.2d 524, 2d Cir. (1957)Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943)Lawrence Deviner v. Electrolux Motor, Ab, 844 F.2d 769, 11th Cir. (1988)Richard Newby Whitney Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc., a Marine Corporation v. F/v Kristen Gail, Official No. 618791, Her Engines, Tackle Gear, Equipment and Appurtenances, and Bruce E. Joyce Jane Doe Joyce, Defendants/third-Party-Defendants/appellants v. Steven N. Slotvig Jane Doe Slotvig, Defendants/third-Party-Defendants/appellees. Richard Newby Whitney Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc., a Marine Corporation v. F/v Kristen Gail, Official No. 618791, Her Engines, Tackle Gear, Equipment and Appurtenances v. Bruce E. Joyce Jane Doe Joyce, Defendants/third-Party-Plaintiffs/appellees v. Steven N. Slotvig Jane Doe Slotvig, Husband and Wife, Defendants/third-Party-Defendants/appellants, 937 F.2d 1439, 3rd Cir. (1991)