## Facts

- Jarrett Alexander wrote a story about the son of Apollo Creed, a character from the *Rocky* film series, and drafted a screenplay he titled *Creed*.
- Alexander also created a pitch reel and a website to publicize the screenplay.
- Between 2010 and 2013, Alexander widely circulated the screenplay and pitch materials on the internet and on social media without confidentiality terms or other restrictions.
- As part of this outreach, Alexander posted a link to the pitch reel’s website to Sylvester Stallone’s Twitter account.
- Stallone did not respond, and none of the defendant studios or filmmakers responded to Alexander’s unsolicited outreach; Alexander alleged no meetings, negotiations, or dialogue with any defendant about his *Creed* story.
- Alexander alleged that, based on what he believed to be industry custom, he expected to be paid if a movie was made using his idea after he shared his materials.
- MGM and Stallone later announced plans to develop *Creed*, a film about the son of a *Rocky* character; Alexander alleged the announced film matched the story he had created and circulated.
- Alexander sued MGM, Warner Brothers Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Stallone, Ryan Coogler, and Aaron Covington (collectively, the moviemakers), asserting state-law theories including breach of implied-in-fact contract (idea submission), misappropriation of idea, and unjust enrichment.
- The action was filed in New Jersey, removed to federal court, transferred to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the moviemakers moved to dismiss with prejudice.

## Issues

1. After a § 1404(a) transfer from New Jersey to California, which state’s law governs Alexander’s state-law claims under the transferor forum’s choice-of-law rules?
2. Under California law, can Alexander state a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract based on unsolicited, one-way online sharing of a screenplay and a tweet, without any alleged acceptance or negotiations by defendants?
3. Under California law, can Alexander maintain a misappropriation-of-idea claim where the alleged idea was widely distributed publicly and is not treated as a property right in this setting?
4. Can Alexander recover on an unjust enrichment theory when he alleges no contract formation and no legally recognized property interest in the idea?

## Decision

- The court applied New Jersey choice-of-law rules (as the transferor forum’s rules) and concluded California law governed the state-law claims.
- The court dismissed the implied-in-fact contract claim because Alexander alleged only unilateral, unsolicited outreach and public distribution, with no facts supporting defendants’ acceptance of the submission on terms that payment would be owed if used.
- The court dismissed the misappropriation-of-idea claim because, in this context, California does not treat a film idea as a protectable property right, and Alexander’s public, unrestricted dissemination also defeated any confidentiality-based theory.
- The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because the pleadings did not show a contractual undertaking or other recognized basis requiring restitution for use of the idea.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, terminating the case.

## Legal Principles

- After a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the transferee court applies the transferor forum’s choice-of-law rules to state-law claims.
- In California entertainment idea-submission disputes, an “idea” is generally not treated as a standalone property right; protection (if any) typically rests on contract-based theories rather than ownership of the idea itself.
- A California implied-in-fact “idea submission” contract requires allegations supporting mutual assent: the plaintiff must show the submission was made with an expectation of payment if used and that the defendant knew of and accepted that condition through the circumstances of receipt and use.
- Public, unrestricted dissemination of material (including internet posting and social media outreach) generally defeats claims that depend on confidential disclosure or an inference that the recipient accepted an obligation to pay.
- Unjust enrichment does not supply recovery where the plaintiff fails to plead a contract or a legally recognized interest that makes retention of the alleged benefit unjust.

## Conclusion

In *Alexander v Metro-Goldwin-Meyer Studios, Inc.*, the Central District of California applied California law and held that Alexander’s public online circulation of his *Creed* screenplay and pitch materials—including an unanswered tweet—did not plausibly show confidentiality, a property right in the idea, or mutual assent to an implied promise to pay if defendants used the concept; the court therefore dismissed his implied-contract, misappropriation, and unjust-enrichment claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.


Alexander v Metro-Goldwin-Meyer Studios, Inc., CV 17-3123-RSWL-KS (2017)