Court Opinion

ID: 9370109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 20:02:37.176082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.489799
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/10/23 Mosher v. Warner Bros. Pictures CA2/8
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

 MICHAEL D. MOSHER,                                                  B312661

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  Los Angeles County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                        20STCV11096

 WARNER BROS. PICTURES et
 al.,

           Defendants and
           Respondents.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed.
     Michael D. Mosher, in pro.per.; Law Offices of Scott E.
Schutzman and Scott E. Schutzman for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     King & Spalding, Arwen R. Johnson and Laura Lively
Babashoff for Defendants and Respondents.
                     ____________________
       Michael D. Mosher claims he wrote a novel he could not get
published. He finished it sometime around 2001. Thereafter,
Mosher asserts, he provided his manuscript to a relative—who is
a well-known producer—and entered into an option agreement
with her to make his novel into a movie. Mosher claims his story
somehow got into the hands of several entities and an individual
who turned it into a major movie, The Accountant (Warner Bros.
Pictures 2016). These defendants are Warner Bros. Pictures,
RatPac Dune Entertainment, LLC, Electric City Entertainment,
Zero Gravity Management, and Bill Dubuque, among others. We
refer to them collectively as Warner Brothers.
       Mosher sued Warner Brothers in March 2020, claiming he
was entitled to compensation for his contribution to the movie.
He says he discovered the movie on a flight “[a]pproximately two
years prior to the initial filing of this Complaint.”
       After the case made a quick trip to federal court, Mosher
amended his complaint to assert a single cause of action for
breach of implied contract.
       Warner Brothers demurred on two bases: (1) Mosher’s
action was time-barred, and (2) he did not and could not state
facts to satisfy several elements of his claim. The trial court
sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the first
ground.
       We affirm. Our review is independent. (Cavey v. Tualla
(2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 310, 326 (Cavey).)
       Litigants can raise the statute of limitations by demurrer.
(Cavey, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at pp. 325–326; see also id. at
p. 326 [demurrer appropriate where lawsuit’s untimeliness
clearly and affirmatively appears on the complaint’s face or from
matters judicially noticed].)

                                2
       The statute of limitations for an implied contract claim is
two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. (1); NBCUniversal
Media, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1230
(NBCUniversal).) Claims like Mosher’s accrue, at the latest,
when the ideas are disclosed to the general public. (See id. at pp.
1227, 1234 [as a matter of law, plaintiffs’ implied contract claim
was complete “no later than the date of the initial broadcast”
because that was when the marketability of plaintiffs’ ideas for a
ghost-hunter television show “was destroyed due to its disclosure
to the public”]; see also id. at pp. 1229, fn. 3 & 1231.) In other
words, the release date starts the clock. At this point, the basis
for the claim is open and apparent.
       The release date for The Accountant in the United States
was October 14, 2016. The trial court judicially noticed this fact,
and Mosher does not dispute it. This is when the statute of
limitations period began to run. It ran out two years later in
October 2018. Mosher’s original complaint shows a filing date of
March 20, 2020. His lawsuit is therefore time-barred.
       Mosher argues his suit is timely because the discovery rule
tolled the statute of limitations. NBCUniversal forecloses his
argument. As that case and others have explained, courts
typically apply the discovery rule in tort actions; some have
extended the rule to contract actions involving fraud, a fiduciary
relationship, or a hidden breach or injury. (See NBCUniversal,
supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1233–1234 & fns. 5, 7; see also, ,
April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 828–
832.) This is not such a case.
       The nationwide release of The Accountant, plus Mosher’s
failure to assert he was prevented from viewing the movie,
renders the discovery rule inapplicable. (See NBCUniversal,

                                 3
supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227, 1234–1236 [discovery rule
inapplicable where the challenged television show premiered on
the Syfy channel more than two years before plaintiffs filed suit
and plaintiffs did not assert they were prevented from viewing
the program]; see also id. at p. 1234 [“the discovery rule does not
operate to delay accrual of a cause of action ‘beyond the point at
which their factual basis became accessible to plaintiff to the
same degree as it was accessible to every other member of the
public.’”], id. at p. 1235 [“public disclosure to even a limited
audience is sufficient to preclude a plaintiff from arguing that the
breach and injury were secretive and difficult to detect”].)
       NBCUniversal also explains why the date Mosher first saw
The Accountant is irrelevant. (See NBCUniversal, supra, 225
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1234–1235.)
       Mosher maintains NBCUniversal is distinguishable
because that case ended at summary judgment, not demurrer.
This is of no moment when the law forecloses Mosher’s claim on
undisputed facts. Mosher tellingly does not specify how he would
replead to cure the defect here.
       Mosher also argues a key fact distinguishes NBCUniversal
from this case: the plaintiffs there discovered facts relating to
their claim before the show’s first broadcast, and he made no
similar discovery here. This fact means the statute of limitations
could have run earlier in NBCUniversal. (See NBCUniversal,
supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1236, fn. 9.) It does not change the
outcome here.
       In light of our holding, we need not reach Mosher’s other
arguments regarding the discovery rule’s elements. Nor do we
address the parties’ arguments regarding the merits of Mosher’s
cause of action.

                                 4
                        DISPOSITION
      We affirm the judgment sustaining the demurrer without
leave to amend and award costs to Warner Brothers.

                                       WILEY, J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                               5