Baer v. Chase

Facts

D is the creator, producer, writer, and director of The Sopranos. Before D met P, D had worked on a number of projects involving organized crime activities based in New Jersey, including a script for 'a mob boss in therapy,' a concept that, in part, would become the basis for The Sopranos. D was producing and directing a Rockford Files 'movie-of-the-week' when he met Joseph Urbancyk who was working on the set as a camera operator and temporary director of photography. D mentioned that he was looking for new material and for writers who could develop feature film screenplays that D later might re-write and direct. Urbancyk also overheard D say that the creators of The Rockford Files were looking to assign additional writers for their 'movie of the week' project. P, who was a New Jersey attorney, recently had left his employment in the Union County Prosecutor's Office in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where he had worked for the previous six years. Urbancyk urged P to write a script for The Rockford Files. P did so and gave it to Urbancyk who passed it on to D. D considered P's work 'interesting' and asked Urbancyk if P had any plans to be in Los Angeles. P flew to Los Angeles to meet with D. D was unable to use the Rockford script. P described his experience as a prosecutor. P also pitched the idea to shoot 'a film or television show about the New Jersey Mafia.' P was unaware of D's previous work involving mob activity premised in New Jersey. D visited New Jersey for three days. P arranged meetings for Chase with Detective Thomas Koczur, Detective Robert A. Jones, and Tony Spirito who provided D with information, material, and personal stories about their experiences with organized crime. Spirito told true and sometimes personal stories involving loan sharking, a power struggle with two uncles involving a family business, and two individuals, Big Pussy and Little Pussy Russo. D also met with Jones, a detective with the Union County Prosecutor's office who had experience investigating organized crime. P does not dispute that virtually all of the ideas and locations that he 'contributed' to Chase existed in the public record. D sent P a copy of a draft of a Soprano's screenplay that he had written, which was dated December 20, 1995. D called P and made various comments with regard to it. P claims that the two spoke at least four times during the following year and that he sent a letter to D dated February 10, 1997, discussing The Sopranos script. P asserts that he and D orally agreed on three separate occasions that if the show became a success, D would 'take care of' P, and 'remunerate P in a manner commensurate to the true value of [his services].' P and D first made this oral agreement on the telephone during one of their first two or three conversations during the summer of 1995. The second occasion was on the telephone and occurred immediately prior to D's October 1995 visit to New Jersey. The third time the parties reached the agreement was in person when they met in New Jersey in October 1995. D offered to pay P, stating 'you help me; I pay you.' P made a counteroffer that if the show failed D would owe nothing and if it succeeded he would owe monies. On or about May 15, 2002, P filed a verified complaint against D in the district court. P advanced ten claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) breach of quasi-contract; (4) common law fraud; (5) equitable fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (9) unfair competition and misappropriation; and (10) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. D brought a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) alleging that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. D claimed that the alleged contract and implied contract were too vague, ambiguous, and lacking in essential terms to be enforced and the statute of frauds barred the actions based on them. Moreover, Chase claimed that the statute of limitations barred the breach of quasi-contract quantum meruit claim. The district court granted D's motion, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to any of P's claims. The appeals court held that a contract is 'unenforceable for vagueness when its terms are too indefinite to allow a court to determine with reasonable certainty what each party has promised to do.' This alleged agreement between P and D has none of the hallmarks of an enforceable contract. It is indefinite and vague in both price and duration. Nothing in the record indicates that the parties agreed on how, how much, where, or for what period D would compensate P. The contract as articulated by P lacks essential terms and is vague, indefinite, and uncertain; no version of the alleged agreement contains sufficiently precise terms to constitute an enforceable contract. Despite P's creativity in combining stories and facts existing in the public domain, New Jersey does not protect this mode of originality under its misappropriation law. Thus, the district court correctly granted D summary judgment on P's misappropriation claim. This rejection of P's implied-in-fact contract claim does not preclude him from recovering on his quasi-contract claim. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. All that remains from the complaint is a single quasi-contract claim. Ds argue, any information that D did receive during his three-day visit to northern New Jersey came from people other than P and/or was a matter of public record. New Jersey law does not permit recovery in quasi-contract for the use of non-novel ideas. P claims that none of the earlier opinions preclude him from recovering in quasi-contract for his ideas because his sharing of those ideas, though not novel, conferred a benefit upon D. Worst case P claims the ideas were novel to D and the unique combination and aggregation of public domain facts resulted in ideas that were, in fact, novel. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.