2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Copyright Suit Against Jerry Seinfeld Over 'Comedians in Cars' Series
When the "Comedians in Cars" pilot aired in July 2012 without crediting Charles, it was also apparent that Charles' claim to ownership had been "publicly repudiated," officially putting him on notice of his claims, the Second Circuit said.
May 07, 2020 at 02:48 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A Second Circuit panel has upheld the dismissal of a copyright lawsuit from a former collaborator of Jerry Seinfeld, who claimed to have come up with the idea for the hit series "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in a summary order Thursday that Christian Charles, a writer and director who worked with Seinfeld on the show's pilot, had waited too long to file his suit under the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims.
The ruling upheld an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York, who tossed the 2018 lawsuit last October on substantially the same grounds.
Seinfeld's lawyer, who in the past has bashed Charles' suit as a self-serving "money grab," said in a statement Thursday that the Second Circuit's ruling was further proof that his client was the "sole creator" of the show.
"At every level, the courts have seen through this ridiculous attempt to capitalize on the success of the show," said Orin Snyder, a partner in the New York office in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "Today's ruling by the appellate court is another vindication against these opportunistic and phony claims."
Peter Skolnik, of Clark Guldin, the New Jersey and New York-based lawyer who represented Charles, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Second Circuit panel held that Charles' claims hinged on whether his contributions to the show's pilot had qualified him as the owner of the "Comedians in Cars" copyrights. But the ruling credited Nathan's findings that Seinfeld had twice rejected Charles' requests for back-end compensation before "Comedians in Cars" premiered in 2012, making it clear that Seinfeld considered Charles' only involvement to be on a work-for-hire basis.
When the "Comedians in Cars" pilot aired in July 2012 without crediting Charles, it was also apparent that Charles' claim to ownership had been "publicly repudiated," officially putting him on notice of his claims, the Second Circuit said.
"Either one of these developments was enough to place Charles on notice that his ownership claim was disputed and therefore this action, filed six years later, was brought too late," the panel wrote in a three-page order.
"Charles's infringement claim is therefore time-barred because his ownership claim is time-barred," the decision said.
According to court documents, Charles worked up a treatment and shot a pilot with Seinfeld when the comedian began developing the show as a web series in 2012. The two later had a falling out over Charles' demands for compensation and ownership, and while he was ultimately paid nearly $108,00 for his work, Charles had no further involvement with "Comedians in Cars."
Charles said in court filings that between 2012 and 2014 that he "maintained a reasonable and good faith belief" that Seinfeld would eventually acknowledge his ownership and "bring him in" on the show, which originally debuted on the streaming service Crackle.
In wasn't until Netflix inked a lucrative deal to bring the show onto its platform in 2017 that Seinfeld's lawyer told Charles directly that his client was the sole creator and owner of the show, he said.
Nathan's ruling last year, however, rejected those arguments and dismissed the case under the statute of limitations, finding that a "reasonably diligent plaintiff would have understood that Seinfeld was repudiating any claim of ownership that Charles may have."
"We conclude that the district court was correct in granting defendants' motion to dismiss, for substantially the same reasons that it set out in its well-reasoned opinion," the Second Circuit said Thursday.
The panel included Second Circuit Judges John M. Walker Jr., Rosemary S. Pooler and Gerard E. Lynch.
Read More:
Judge Tosses Copyright Suit Against Jerry Seinfeld Over 'Comedians in Cars' Series
Seinfeld Wants Copyright Suit Over 'Comedians In Cars' Kicked to the Curb
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpotify GC Steps Down, Opts to 'Step Away From Full-Time Corporate Life'
2 minute readPoop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
4 minute readNetflix Music Guru Becomes First GC of Startup Helping Independent Artists Monetize Catalogs
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Jan. 30, 2025—Rubin Glickman, Goldberg Segalla
- 2Georgia Republicans Push to Limit Lawsuits. But Would That Keep Insurance Rates From Rising?
- 3Trending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
- 4The Importance of Judicial Elections
- 5Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250