Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9143266" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Thank you! Brief thoughts on the complaint as I read through it.Procedural stuff.Filed in C.D. Cal. (Federal Court, Central District of California, Wester Div.). That's LA and surrounding areas.Jurisdiction is based on ... copyright claims ... which is weird, because I didn't see a copyright claim in the caption. OkFacts.Snyder pitched Netflix on the whole Rebel Moon franchise idea, including a TTRPG.EG then pitched their concept to Netflix and Snyder, and they liked it. This led to the licensing agreement (Agreement).(Another weird thing- they didn't attach a copy of the Agreement to the complaint.)Actual financial details- EG paid a $7500 advance, with another $15k due in 2024 and 2025. In addition, Netflix would get a share of profits of certain related goods.Okay, now I see the meat- according to the complaint, the script from Rebel Moon was missing a lot of details ... you know, the whole world-building thing people want when they make franchises. And so EG made a "World Bible" to make it all cohesive. The example they use is that the script refers to an "Alien 1" and the Bible gave Alien 1 a name, age, origin, and a history of its home planet.Which led to Snyder/Netflix saying that the stuff from the Bible are / would be incorporated into the film or other works ....(Insert I have a bad feeling about this gif).According to EG, Netflix then accused EG of breaching the confidentiality provisions of the agreement, using that to terminate the agreement.Then there's just the usual scuttlebutt (Netflix is a meanie, they tried to pay us off ... which, um, is interesting in that is usually not something you in a complaint, but it depends on the context).Causes of Action1. Breach of K.Pretty self-explanatory; the claim is that Netflix (I am using Netflix to mean all Defendants) breached the Agreement, and that Netflix has to perform to the contract (specific performance) or in the alternative, that the Agreement is rescinded and EG gets restitution. Basic stuff, but ... the Agreement is the license, so that's going to be an issue.2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Goof Faith and Fair DealingThis is the whole, "You didn't breach the terms of the Agreement, but you violated the spirit, yo!" Eh. Always tough.3. Quantum Meruit.Pay me for the work we did.4. Unjust Enrichment.It's not equitable (fair) that Netflix benefitted from being able to link the Snyderverse together using EG's work without paying Plaintiff.Side note- each of these counts has a minimum jurisdiction requirement. WHAT???5. Dec action.Declare that Netflix is a bunch of poopy-heads. Just kidding! EG wants the court to declare that they own the rights to the works that they made. Basically.AnalysisLook, I'm going to be quick. There's the factual issues, and then the legal issues. Factually, I can smell what the <s>Rock</s> EG is cooking. You don't have to read between the lines to understand that the basic claim is this-1. They did all this work on the TTRPG.2. Some of this work included the World Bible.3. The actual "Rebel Moon" Snyderverse was ... underdeveloped.4. Netflix and/or Snyder began using the Bible to develop the Rebel Moon Snyderverse (RMS?).5. Someone was like, "Oh snap. We need to make sure we actually own this stuff."6. So Netflix decided to claim EG was in breach of the Agreement, and then tried to force EG to hand over the Bible.Obviously, this is just one side of the story. And truth is a three-edged sword ... there is Netflix's truth, EG's truth, and then there is Snarf's truth (aka, the absolute truth) so we'll see.I am a little more concerned about the legal irregularities in the Complaint. It's not that it's bad, per se, it's just ... not quite right. Let me explain-1. It's a complaint largely based on a single contract. The five counts are, roughly, "They breached that contract, they didn't act in good faith with regard to that contract, they should pay us despite the contract, they should pay despite the contract (part 2), and this court should declare our rights ... under the contract." So what's missing? Yeah, the contract. It's normally standard practice to attach the contract to a complaint like this. Under Federal Pleading Standards, you aren't required to attach it .. but it's odd. For example, at a minimum I'd like to be able to read the provisions of the Agreement; not all confidentiality provisions are the same.2. They filed in federal court, but there is a questionable basis for federal jurisdiction. You either have to have a federal claim, or diversity jurisdiction. The parties are not diverse, even though there are repeated reference to the minimum jurisdiction of the court (for either state court purposes or federal court). The complaint asserts jurisdiction for copyright claims. The declaratory action states it sounds under copyright, but the law in that area is ... well, you have to be able to assert that the defendant would make a coercive claim under federal law, so it's a different analysis, and it really looks like EB is actually asking for a declaration of its rights under the contract, and tossed that in for jurisdictional purposes.Still with all that said, the allegations are certainly harsh and at this stage, believable. Although there are hints of other things that might have went on (for example, the "fronting" of the allegations that Netflix was unhappy with EG's CEO's response to Netflix's concerns about confidentiality).</blockquote>

Verification