Mosher v. Warner Bros. Pictures CA2/8

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 Pictures CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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].)