In a court order issued today, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson said: “The defendant’s primary argument in the motion to dismiss is that the plaintiff has not sufficiently pledged in his FAC that the paragraph and the sequel are ‘substantially identical’. Huh.” “The Court disagrees.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, the Court set aside the motion to set aside,” said the dense order (read it here) “The Court has concluded that the FAC has sufficiently well-reasoned facts to state viable claims for copyright infringement, breach of contract and declaratory relief.”
or, as tom cruise Says in High Flying Blockbuster: “Mach 10? Let’s give them Mach 10!”
A Paramount Pictures spokesperson told Deadline this afternoon, “While the court declined to dismiss the case at this early stage in the proceedings, we will continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit and are confident that the finding will confirm that.” that the claims have no merit.”
filed back first in June, Complaint by son of Israeli widow and author of a 1983 article that inspired the original 1986 top Gun The flick claims the 2022 sequel is off the termination rights — aka you shouldn’t have made this “derivative” film without us saying.
In california In the May 1983 edition of the magazine, Ehud Yone wrote “Top Guns” about the pilots and the program, “located in the second-floor QB of the offices at the eastern end of Hangar One in Miramar.” The piece was chosen very quickly, was made in a now classic Reagan era photograph and Yone was actually quoted in the earlier credits. top Gun, After more than 35 years was cut and a long-desired sequel finally got off the ground, but Mark Toberoff- and Alex Kozinski-represented Shosh Yone and Yuval Yone claimed the rights returned to them in January 2020 under copyright laws. Claimed.
In communication with Jonay before going to court, Paramount woven and claimed Rogue A lot had already been done before the end date of January 24, 2020. The studio also emphasized that the film is subject to the “prior derivative work exception” in law.
Knocking out in federal court just after scoring $1.5 billion box office Rogue Released in late May, the lawsuit seeks hefty but unspecified financial compensation. Yonez also seeks an injunction preventing the screening and distribution of the film, which is window-dressing at this junction.
No wonder, Paramount didn’t have anything like it this summer Rogue Rocked into the box office stratosphere.
“When the Court reviews the article and RogueIn contrast to the plaintiff’s irreconcilable and misleading alleged actions, it is clear in the matter of law that Rogue does not borrow any protected expression of the article,” the studio declared in its motion to dismiss the filing. of 26 August.
Unfortunately for Paramount, Judge Anderson reviewed the material, and pointed his pitot tube in the other direction.
Which means Paramount now has until November 28 to formally respond to the initial complaint.