AZARIA v. BIERKO, 12-cv-09732-GAF-(RZx). (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20140317810
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2014
Summary: JUDGMENT GARY A. FEESS, District Judge. Plaintiffs Hank Azaria ("Azaria") and How To Pictures, Inc.'s ("How To") Case 2:12-cv-09732-GAF-RZ Document 63 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1008 (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment against Defendant Craig Bierko ("Bierko" or "Defendant") on both claims for declaratory relief came regularly for consideration before the Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proc
Summary: JUDGMENT GARY A. FEESS, District Judge. Plaintiffs Hank Azaria ("Azaria") and How To Pictures, Inc.'s ("How To") Case 2:12-cv-09732-GAF-RZ Document 63 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1008 (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment against Defendant Craig Bierko ("Bierko" or "Defendant") on both claims for declaratory relief came regularly for consideration before the Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce..
More
JUDGMENT
GARY A. FEESS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Hank Azaria ("Azaria") and How To Pictures, Inc.'s ("How To") Case 2:12-cv-09732-GAF-RZ Document 63 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1008 (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment against Defendant Craig Bierko ("Bierko" or "Defendant") on both claims for declaratory relief came regularly for consideration before the Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Motion for Summary Judgment").
After reviewing all the moving, opposition, and reply papers, and the evidence submitted by the parties and objections pertaining thereto, the Court, on February 21, 2014, issued an order GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to said order, the Court hereby finds:
There are no genuine issues of material fact as to both declaratory relief claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the grounds stated in the Court's February 21, 2014, order, a copy of which is attached hereto.
2. The Court finds on the first declaratory relief claim that:
a. the Jim Brockmire character is copyrightable subject matter,
b. Bierko's Baseball Announcer Character is not copyrightable subject matter,
c. How To is the copyright owner of the Jim Brockmire character, and
d. Bierko has no right, title, or interest in the Jim Brockmire character.
3. The Court finds on the second declaratory relief claim that no contract (implied or express) was ever formed between Azaria and Bierko pertaining to anything regarding Bierko's baseball announcer voice.
4. Pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54-1, Plaintiffs are entitled to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
