Toberoff & Associates has secured positive results for its clients in numerous high-profile matters. The following is a sample of some of the more noteworthy matters:
Horror v. Miller, 335 F. Supp. 3d 273 (D. Conn. 2018), aff’d, 15 F.4th 232 (2d Cir. 2022): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented Victor Miller, author of the original screenplay for the horror classic Friday the 13th. After the film’s success, Miller was left in the dust by producer Sean Cunningham, who went on to produce 11 sequels without him. The Firm secured an extraordinarily favorable ruling in the District Court of Connecticut, which, in a published opinion (available here), upheld Miller’s Notices of Termination under Section 203(a) of Copyright Act and the recovery of Miller’s original Friday the 13th copyright. The District Court’s decision was later affirmed by the Second Circuit in a landmark decision (available here).
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Lieber, No. CV 21-7955 (S.D.N.Y.); Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Solo, No. CV 21-5316 (E.D.N.Y.) and Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Michele Hart-Rico, No. CV 21-7624 (C.D. Cal.): Mr. Toberoff represented the rights and interests under the Copyright Act of leading comic-book creators Steve Ditko, Larry Lieber, Gene Colan, Don Heck, and Don Rico, to some of Marvel’s most iconic superheroes, including Spider-Man, Iron Man, Thor, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Blade and Black Widow. After significant litigation in 2021-2023, the five cases settled on confidential terms.
Thomas v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. CV 21-2720 LB (N.D. Cal.): Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Thomas, No. CV 21-3272 GW (C.D. Cal.). In 2021 Mr. Toberoff represented brothers John and James Thomas who created Predator regarding the recapture of the copyright to their original “spec” screenplay (remarkably their first screenplay) underlying the sci-fi action blockbuster Predator (1987) and ensuing Fox franchise. After just a few months of litigation, the case amicably settled on confidential terms in late-2021.
In Re Estate of James Brown, 430 S.C. 474, 846 S.E.2d 342 (S.C. 2020): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented the children of the iconic singer-songwriter James Brown in an action that made its way all the way to the South Carolina Supreme Court. In June of 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in favor of the Firm’s clients that Brown’s alleged “widow” was not his lawful spouse, putting an end to over a decade of legal wrangling. As a result, Brown’s children now control and enjoy 100% of the benefits conferred upon them by the U.S. Copyright Act.
RCF, Inc. v. Robinson et al., 919 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2013): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented the children of the legendary singer-songwriter Ray Charles. The Firm prevailed in a suit that saw its clients recover via the Copyright Act’s termination provisions, the U.S. copyrights to many of Charles’ most famous compositions. A copy of this important decision is available here. The decision was later reversed and remanded by the 9th Circuit, on purely procedural grounds, and soon settled on confidential terms.
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby, 726 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented Jack Kirby’s heirs in a major lawsuit vs. Marvel (i.e., Disney) regarding the iconic comic book franchises Kirby created or co-created, including The X-Men, The Avengers, The Fantastic Four, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, Silver Surfer, and many more. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which expressed interest in the Firm’s petition for certiorari (noted by the prominent SCOTUSBlog as a “Petition to Watch”). The Firm secured amicus briefs from all the Hollywood Guilds (WGA, DGA and SAG), the former Register of Copyrights and Commissioner for Trademarks, PEN USA, plus 237 illustrators (11 of whom were Pulitzer Prize winners). After the Supreme Court indicated interest by calling for a response from Marvel, the case settled on confidential terms. Jack “The King” Kirby is finally credited for his creations, alongside Stan Lee, in all of Marvel’s derivative films.
Siegel v. Time Warner Inc., et al., No. CV 04-8400 SGL (RZx), (C.D. Cal. 2008): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented the widow and daughter of Jerry Siegel, Superman’s co-creator. Mr. Toberoff secured a favorable summary judgment ruling upholding the recapture “after 70 years” by Siegel's heirs of “what he granted so long ago – the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1.” This historic copyright ruling still stands today. The landmark case entailed 10 years of hard-fought litigation by the Firm, including multiple appeals, until settling in 2016 on confidential terms. A copy of the celebrated decision is available here.
Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn, 532 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008): Mr. Toberoff overturned summary judgment in favor of Classic Media and won summary judgment in favor of the daughter of Eric Knight, author of the beloved children’s book, Lassie Comes Home. The published 9th Circuit decision re-affirmed the rights of authors and their families to terminate prior grants of copyright, “notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.” A copy of this important decision is available here. The case was thereafter settled on confidential terms.
Moonrunners L.P. v. Time Warner Inc., et al., No. CV 05-1361 GAF (VBKx), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41244 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2005): Mr. Toberoff successfully secured a preliminary injunction against Warner Bros.’ distribution of the motion picture The Dukes of Hazzard (2005) just prior to its scheduled release in a David vs. Goliath case that sent shock waves through the Hollywood studios. The case was thereafter promptly settled on confidential terms. A copy of the extraordinary decision is available here.
Clonus Associates v. Dreamworks, LLC, 457 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006): Mr. Toberoff successfully represented Robert Fiveson, producer/director of the indie film, “Parts: The Clonus Horror” (1979), in a copyright infringement action against Dreamworks, LLC for its 2005 blockbuster “The Island.” The district court denied the studio’s motion for summary judgment, writing in its decision (available here) that “the jury will have to decide whether the similarities are qualitatively substantial, and therefore actionable.” The parties settled shortly thereafter on confidential terms.
Copyright © 2024 Toberoff & Associates, PC - All Rights Reserved.