## Facts

- Bernice Mann wrote a 29-page motion-picture outline/treatment titled “Women Plus” and registered it with the Writers Guild of America.
- Mann, through a mutual acquaintance, submitted “Women Plus” (and another work) for consideration through a person associated with Columbia.
- The submission was not shown to have been routed to Columbia’s story department; instead, it was passed to a story editor at another company, Filmmakers.
- Filmmakers rejected the other work and did not expressly accept or reject “Women Plus.”
- Columbia later released the film *Shampoo*, written by Warren Beatty and Robert Towne.
- Mann claimed *Shampoo* used elements from “Women Plus” and that industry custom created an implied-in-fact agreement to pay if her ideas were used.
- At trial, Beatty and Towne testified, without contradiction, that they never had access to “Women Plus.”
- A jury nevertheless found for Mann on an implied-in-fact contract theory and awarded $185,000.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and conditionally granted a new trial, finding no substantial evidence supported the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that defendants had access to and used “Women Plus,” establishing liability under an implied-in-fact idea-submission contract.
2. Whether alleged similarities between “Women Plus” and *Shampoo* could support an inference of use when the claimed common elements were general or undeveloped.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted JNOV on the ground that the verdict rested on insubstantial or speculative evidence.
4. Whether the trial court committed reversible procedural error in specifying certain issues as without substantial controversy and in conditionally granting a new trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the JNOV in favor of Columbia, Beatty, and Towne.
- The court held there was no substantial evidence of access or use; the asserted chain of transmission depended on speculation and layered inferences.
- The court concluded Beatty’s and Towne’s uncontradicted lack-of-access testimony, together with evidence consistent with independent creation, defeated the jury’s inference of copying/use.
- The court determined the similarities relied upon were largely general ideas or stock elements, and the treatment was too undeveloped to support Mann’s theories on the record presented.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s pretrial order specifying issues without substantial controversy; the conditional new-trial order was not a basis for reversal given affirmance of JNOV.

## Legal Principles

- JNOV is proper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict, there is no substantial evidence of ponderable legal significance supporting the jury’s findings; speculation cannot sustain a verdict.
- An implied-in-fact idea-submission contract may arise only if the recipient knowingly accepts the submission under circumstances showing an expectation of payment and then uses the submitted material.
- Proof of access is a key factual predicate for showing use in idea-submission and plagiarism-adjacent claims; a speculative transmission chain does not constitute substantial evidence.
- Similarities based on general ideas, themes, or stock situations—especially in an undeveloped treatment—are insufficient, without more, to establish actionable use or copying.
- Evidence of independent creation can rebut an inference of use that might otherwise be argued from similarities.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the defendants because Mann’s case depended on conjecture about access and use, and the asserted similarities were largely general and undeveloped; without substantial evidence that defendants actually received and used her submission under circumstances implying payment, the jury’s implied-in-fact contract verdict could not stand.


Mann v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 128 Cal. App. 3d 628, 180 Cal. Rptr. 522 (Ct. App. 1982)