Here are the relevant facts:
"Around January
2011, Jordan-Benel wrote a screenplay entitled Settler’s Day
about a family’s attempt to survive an annual, state-sanctioned,
24-hour period in which citizens are allowed to
commit any crime without legal consequences. He
registered the screenplay with the Writers Guild of America
and the U.S. Copyright Office.
Around June 2011, Jordan-Benel’s manager, Adam
Peck, emailed David Kramer, Managing Director of Feature
Productions at United Talent Agency (“UTA”), about
Settler’s Day. Kramer responded that Peck should contact
Emerson Davis at UTA to discuss the screenplay. Peck then
spoke with Davis and asked permission to submit the
screenplay. Davis agreed and asked that Peck email the
screenplay to both Davis and Kramer. On July 8, 2011, Peck
submitted the screenplay.
Based on custom and practice in the industry and prior
dealings between UTA and Peck, UTA understood that the
submission was not gratuitous and was made for the purpose
of selling the screenplay to a UTA client. Around July 13,
2011, Davis emailed Peck to confirm that he had read the
screenplay but that he was going to “pass.” Nonetheless,
someone at UTA sent the screenplay to UTA client James
DeMonaco. DeMonaco and his partner, Sebastian
Lemercier (also a UTA client), wrote a script entitled The Purge, which allegedly copies Jordan-Benel’s ideas from
Settler’s Day."
That doesn't sound like an absurd claim, does it? And there's a lot of money at stake, since there's not only the original movie, but also a couple of sequels.
Now, even with a decent claim on the merits, you need to make sure that you don't mess things up. In the present case, there may well have been a strategic error, since the plaintiff not only sued to obtain damages, but also for declaratory relief that he was the owner of the screenplay and hence entitled to credit.
Two problems. One, such relief is foreclosed by precedent. Two, it potentially opens you up to an anti-SLAPP motion.
And an anti-SLAPP motion is precisely what the defendants file.
Plaintiff ultimately (and wisely) abandons the "credit" claim, but defendants press on with the anti-SLAPP motion, both below and on appeal. And rightly lose. Asking for money because someone stole your work doesn't arise out of free speech activity. Judge Pregerson's opinion is spot on.
But it was still a strategic mistake to ask for credit. One that might have cost the plaintiff on appeal (and still might cost them on remand, since the Ninth Circuit correctly notes that getting one SLAPP claim dismissed still might lead to a fee award even if the rest of the suit has merit.)
A reminder to be careful what you plead.
More is sometimes less.