Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1 1 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Victor Jih (186515) vjih@irell.com 2 Kim Meyer (307655) kmeyer@irell.com 3 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 4 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 5 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kelly Monroe Kullberg and 7 Michael Landon, Jr. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 KELLY MONROE KULLBERG, an Case No. 2:16-cv-03949 12 individual, and MICHAEL LANDON, JR., an individual, COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 PURE FLIX ENTERTAINMENT LLC, 16 a California limited liability company, and DAVID A.R. WHITE, an 17 individual, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 3491965.1 02 Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2 1 2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. sections 101, et 3 seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. sections 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 1338(a) (actions arising 5 under any Act of Congress relating to copyright). 6 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b), 7 (c), and (d), because defendants reside or may be found in this District. 8 9 NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. On March 21, 2014, defendant Pure Flix Entertainment LLC released 10 what would become the highest earning independent motion picture of the year, 11 God’s Not Dead. To date, God’s Not Dead has generated more than $140 million 12 worldwide. The profits Pure Flix earned were sufficient to enable Pure Flix to 13 produce a sequel, released April 1, 2016. 14 4. God’s Not Dead tells the story of a college freshman whose Christian 15 beliefs are put to a public test in three emotionally charged debates with his well16 known philosophy professor, who is an avowed atheist. The movie immediately 17 resonated with Christian audiences, based on its dramatization of arguments over 18 God’s existence and tenets of Christianity—“apologetics,” in classics terms. 19 5. Audiences who enjoyed God’s Not Dead did not know, however, that 20 the most important creative elements of the movie did not originate with defendants. 21 Instead, they came from a screenplay plaintiffs Kelly Kullberg and Michael Landon, 22 Jr. had written and that defendants had learned about, titled Rise. Regrettably, 23 God’s Not Dead is the product of defendants’ infringement of plaintiffs’ copyright24 protected work. By producing God’s Not Dead, defendants destroyed plaintiffs’ 25 prospects for producing a motion picture based on their Rise screenplay. 26 27 THE PARTIES 6. Kelly Monroe Kullberg is an individual residing in Columbus, Ohio. 28 She is the founder of The Veritas Forum, a not-for-profit organization that hosts IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -2- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:3 1 hundreds of forums for college students to discuss hard questions, truth (veritas), 2 and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life. She is the editor and co-author of the 3 bestselling book Finding God At Harvard. She is also the author of Finding God 4 Beyond Harvard: The Quest for Veritas, an autobiography that contributed to the 5 story and screenplay, Rise, an independent work, that is the subject of this action. 6 7. Michael Landon, Jr. is an individual residing in Austin, Texas. He has 7 worked in the entertainment industry since 1977. He is a producer, writer, and 8 director, known for high quality family-oriented entertainment. He has produced 9 theatrical feature films, television motion pictures, and television series for such 10 studios and networks as Twentieth Century Fox, Sony Pictures, Lifetime, Hallmark, 11 and Anchor Bay. He has worked with well-known actors, including Katherine 12 Heigl, January Jones, Oscar winner Louise Fletcher, Oscar nominee Elliott Gould, 13 and Emmy winner Jean Smart. He has also coauthored four novels. 14 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Pure Flix 15 Entertainment LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the 16 laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Arizona. 17 Defendant Pure Flix is an entertainment company that produces, acquires, and 18 markets faith-based motion pictures. 19 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, David A.R. 20 White is a co-founder and principal partner of defendant Pure Flix, residing in 21 Ventura County. Not only did David A.R. White act in God’s Not Dead, he is also 22 credited as the movie’s producer. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 23 allege, that he was heavily involved in the creation of God’s Not Dead, and was one 24 of Pure Flix’s key spokesmen in promoting the movie. 25 FACTS 26 Plaintiffs Kullberg and Landon Collaborate on Rise 27 10. The book Finding God Beyond Harvard: The Quest for Veritas is 28 Kullberg’s 2006 account of her experiences as a Christian at Harvard and other IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -3- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:4 1 secular universities. In 2009, Landon read the book and, at the suggestion of 2 apologist Ravi Zacharias, contacted Kullberg about writing a new but related story 3 as a screenplay to turn into a movie. Kullberg was interested. She and Landon 4 agreed to work together on the project, with Landon serving as director and 5 producer, and Kullberg serving as screenwriter and co-producer. They agreed to 6 each own a 50% interest in the movie. 7 11. Kullberg began writing the screenplay. She borrowed from her 8 experiences as a Christian standing up for her faith, as recounted in her book. The 9 screenplay’s original title was Veritas. Kullberg later changed the title to Rise. 10 12. Rise tells the story of a freshman at Harvard facing an environment 11 hostile to her Christian faith. In a required class, the freshman is forced to decide 12 whether to respond to the claim by a charismatic professor that God does not exist. 13 The student speaks up and as a consequence must publicly debate the professor 14 three times on whether God exists. The first debate goes badly for the student. 15 After much preparation, however, the next two debates go better for her. As her 16 intelligence and persuasiveness emerge, the professor threatens her path to graduate 17 school if she continues to stand up for the existence of God. By the end of the final 18 debate, however, she manages to humble and inspire not only the professor, but also 19 many others, and persuade them that God is not dead. 20 13. Kullberg registered the Rise screenplay with the Writers Guild of 21 America in 2010 [Exhibit 1] and with the United States Copyright Office in 2012 22 [Exhibit 2].1 Thereafter, Kullberg and Landon continued to work on the Rise 23 screenplay. 24 14. In November 2009, Kullberg spoke with Woody White (“Woody”), the 25 president the Cecil B. Day Foundation, at a faith-related gathering at Harvard. 26 1 Kullberg has since filed an application for supplemental registration to 27 correct the omission of Landon from the registration as co-author and co-claimant. [Exhibit 3]. This application was received by the Copyright Office on May 31, 28 2016. IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -4- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:5 1 Woody asked Kullberg about her endeavors. She mentioned that she was working 2 on several projects, including Rise and a motion picture to be produced based on it. 3 Woody expressed interest in the project, and was enthusiastic about its potential. He 4 approached Kullberg several times, asking for details about the screenplay. 5 15. Because of Woody’s past financial support of Veritas and interest in 6 Rise, Kullberg disclosed the details of Rise to him, hoping that he might invest in the 7 project and motion picture production. Kullberg disclosed to Woody numerous, 8 specific plot points of the screenplay, including: a. 9 A bright college freshman enters an academic environment that 10 is hostile to her faith and in a required course is forced to debate a charming 11 atheist professor on God’s existence, three times; b. 12 13 become a lapsed Christian and is questioning her own life and beliefs; c. 14 15 As the student shows brilliance, the professor repeatedly threatens to ruin the student’s chances of getting admitted to graduate school; d. 16 17 The atheist professor is married to his former student, who has The professor’s wife supports the student and her arguments about faith and God’s existence; e. 18 The three debates cover such subjects as cosmology, the “big 19 bang” theory, evil, suffering, and truth, and include persuasive content from 20 Dr. John Lennox and other apologists; f. 21 During this period in the student’s life, she receives support from 22 an unmarried local pastor, a Christian couple living in a rural setting, and an 23 international student; g. 24 The story culminates in a final evening debate and concert with 25 all present, and the atheist professor moves to a posture of openness towards 26 Christianity and belief in the existence of God. 27 16. Excited about what he had learned about Rise from Kullberg, on 28 November 25, 2009, Woody emailed Ted Baehr, Chairman of the Christian Film IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -5- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6 1 and Television Commission and an advisor and resource to those working on faith2 based movie and television projects, to discuss Rise. Woody wrote to Baehr: 3 “remind me to tell you about a movie being done on Harvard student finding God, 4 being done by Michael Landon, JR.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 5 thereon allege, that Woody conveyed the details of Rise to Baehr, including the 6 story of a young college student who has to confront a popular and charming atheist 7 professor in three debates, who struggles in the first debate, but succeeds in the next 8 two after encouragement from supporting characters, including an unmarried local 9 pastor, a rural married couple, the atheist professor’s wife who is also the 10 professor’s former student (a lapsed Christian who questions her own beliefs and 11 observances) and an international student ally, and manages to persuade many 12 others, including the professor, that God does exist. 13 17. Over the course of the next few years, Kullberg and Landon were 14 taking the Rise screenplay to the next level, and towards production. 15 16 Pure Flix Searches for the Right Apologetics Story 18. Unbeknownst to Kullberg or Landon, at the same time they were 17 working on Rise, Pure Flix was also attempting to develop and produce an 18 apologetics movie. Pure Flix, however, had been struggling for years to find the 19 right apologetics story. It had been working with writer Bradley Stine on a 20 screenplay, titled Proof, which told the story of a Christian professor seeking tenure 21 at a secular university. For many years, Stine had been working with defendant 22 David A.R. White on multiple revisions to the screenplay. Pure Flix was never 23 sufficiently satisfied with Proof to finance or produce it, or seek to hire a director or 24 actors to work on it. Pure Flix eventually stopped working with Stine on the project. 25 Its involvement with Stine in the development of a motion picture is the subject of a 26 separate lawsuit, Sullivan v. Pure Flix Entertainment, Case No. BC 583431. 27 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Baehr, 28 perhaps without knowing that Rise was the intellectual property of the plaintiffs, IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -6- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:7 1 discussed Rise with defendant David A.R. White. As one example, Baehr and 2 David A.R. White went on a working vacation, where they discussed the plot points 3 and themes from Rise that Woody had relayed to Baehr. Plaintiffs are informed and 4 believe, and thereon allege, that during this working vacation, and in other 5 conversations, Baehr and David A R. White discussed the planned apologetics 6 movie that Pure Flix had been unable to develop and the problems with it. They 7 also discussed the elements of Rise, including the story of a young college student 8 who has to debate a popular and charming atheist professor over the course of three 9 debates, who struggles in the first debate, but succeeds in the next two after support 10 and encouragement from characters including an unmarried local pastor, a rural 11 married couple, the atheist professor’s wife who is also the professor’s former 12 student (a lapsed Christian doing her own soul-searching) and an international 13 student ally, and manages to persuade many others, including the professor, that 14 God does exist. 15 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that after 16 hearing about Rise, David A.R. White decided to stop working on Proof and decided 17 instead to make a motion picture based on what he knew about Rise. 18 19 God’s Not Dead Is Substantially Similar To Rise 21. Defendant’s infringing motion picture God’s Not Dead is substantially 20 similar to the copyrighted Rise, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. God’s Not Dead 21 simply starts the story from page 29 of the Rise screenplay, skipping the back story 22 and changing the gender of the main character. What follows is a non-exhaustive 23 analysis of some of the similarities between the works’ characters, plots, and 24 dialogue. 25 22. Theme, Plot, and Sequence. The theme, set-up, opportunity, turning 26 point, change of plans, complications, set back, final push, climax, and aftermath of 27 the Rise screenplay and the God’s Not Dead motion picture are the same. 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -7- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:8 1 Rise Script Element God’s Not Dead Counterpart 2 Theme. Christians rising to stand up Theme. Christians rising to stand up 3 for their faith, regardless of the for their faith, regardless of the 4 consequences of their decision. consequences of their decision. 5 Set Up. The protagonist is a Christian Set Up. The protagonist is a Christian 6 college student at a secular university. college student at a secular university. 7 The student aspires to attend graduate The student aspires to attend graduate 8 school. school. 9 Opportunity. To satisfy a general Opportunity. To satisfy a general 10 education requirement for a bachelor’s education requirement for a bachelor’s 11 degree, the student takes a freshman degree, the student takes a freshman 12 philosophy class with professor who philosophy class with professor who 13 turns out to be an atheist. turns out to be an atheist. 14 Turning Point. In class, the student is Turning Point. In class, the student is 15 cold-called about whether God exists cold-called about whether God exists 16 and faces a choice of either silent and faces a choice of either silent 17 conformity (by agreeing with the conformity (by agreeing with the 18 professor’s theory that God is dead) or professor’s theory that God is dead) or 19 the professor’s mockery of faith and the professor’s mockery of faith and 20 claim that God does not exist. The claim that God does not exist. The 21 student chooses to challenge the atheist student chooses to challenge the atheist 22 professor’s assertion that God is dead. 23 Change of Plans. The student publicly Change of Plans. The student publicly 24 challenges the atheist professor’s challenges the atheist professor’s 25 assertion. To her shock, someone assertion. To his shock, someone 26 introduces the idea of three (3) debates introduces the idea of three (3) debates 27 between the professor and the student. between the professor and the student. professor’s assertion that God is dead. 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -8- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:9 1 Rise Script Element 2 Complications. The professor tells the Complications. The professor tells the 3 student that, if she continues with the student if he continues with the debates 4 debates and challenges his view that and challenges his view that God does 5 God does not exist, he will withdraw not exist, he will receive a failing grade 6 her scholarship and lower her grade, in his course, significantly impairing 7 impairing her ability to be admitted to his ability to be admitted to graduate 8 graduate school. school. 9 Set Back. The first debate goes poorly Set Back. The first debate goes poorly God’s Not Dead Counterpart 10 for the student. The professor clearly for the student. The professor clearly 11 wins. wins. 12 Final Push. After losing the first Final Push. After losing the first 13 debate, the student prepares more debate, the student prepares more 14 intensively for the next one, with intensively for the next one, with 15 encouragement from supporting encouragement from supporting 16 characters. She wins the second debate characters. He wins the second debate 17 and continues to prepare for the final and continues to prepare for the final 18 debate. debate. 19 Climax. The student rises with both Climax. The student rises with both 20 truth and mercy, winning the third truth and mercy, winning the third 21 debate and admiration of the audience. debate and admiration of the audience. 22 Aftermath. The professor is humbled Aftermath. In his dying moments, the 23 and becomes open to Christianity, and professor becomes open to Christianity, 24 many other supporting characters and many other supporting characters 25 become Christians. become Christians. 26 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 -9- COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:10 1 23. Settings. Both the Rise screenplay and the God’s Not Dead motion 2 picture are set on idyllic, secular college campuses. Rise is set at Harvard, and 3 God’s Not Dead is set at a fictional university. 4 24. Dialogue. The dialogue in defendants’ God’s Not Dead screenplay and 5 motion picture is substantially similar to the dialogue in the Rise screenplay. The 6 similarities include, but are not limited to: 7 a. repeated several times by pastoral supporters of the protagonist; 8 9 The statement “God is good,” and the response, “all the time,” is b. That statement “God is dead” (i.e., not that God does not exist, but that 10 God no longer exists) is said in the initial confrontation between the 11 student and the professor; 12 c. Esoteric names including “George Santayana” are written down; 13 d. The use of the Book of Job as an example of suffering and faith; 14 e. The big bang and imagery are used to affirm faith during the debates; 15 f. The students in both stories cite arguments from Oxford University Professor John Lennox; 16 17 g. The students in both stories cite arguments from writer C.S. Lewis; 18 h. The students in both stories cite arguments from Christian theologian and philosopher St. Augustine; 19 20 i. The students in both stories cite arguments from Stephen Hawking; 21 j. The students in both stories argue for a moral law; 22 k. The professors in both stories refer to God as a “dictator”; and, 23 l. The professors in both stories refer to faith as a “fairytale.” 24 25. Characters. The characters in defendant’s God’s Not Dead motion 25 picture are substantially similar to the characters in the copyrighted Rise screenplay. 26 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 10 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:11 1 2 Rise Character Emma Anderson. Emma is the God’s Not Dead Character Josh Wheaton. Josh is the 3 protagonist. Emma is a Christian protagonist. Josh is a Christian 4 college student, who comes to college college student, who comes to college 5 with graduate school ambitions. with graduate school ambitions. 6 Thomas Hawkins. Professor Hawkins Professor Radisson. Professor 7 is the antagonist. He is famous, Radisson is the antagonist. He is 8 charming, and arrogant. He is an famous, charming, and arrogant. He is 9 atheist with a Christian wife. an atheist with a Christian wife. 10 Professor Hawkins’ Wife. Professor Professor Radisson’s Wife/Partner. 11 Hawkins’ wife is a former student of Professor Radisson’s wife is a former 12 the Professor’s. She is a lapsed student of the Professor’s. She is a 13 Christian, and lends support to the lapsed Christian, and stands up for the 14 student during her debates with the student and his beliefs. She turns her 15 Professor. She turns her life back life back toward God. 16 toward God. 17 Jivan Bengali. Jivan is an Martin Yip. Martin is an 18 international student from India, and international student from China, and 19 takes the same class as the student. He takes the same class as the student. He 20 provides encouragement to the student provides encouragement to the student 21 in her debate with the Professor. He in his debate with the Professor. He 22 eventually comes to choose eventually comes to choose 23 Christianity. Christianity. 24 Sam. A local pastor, and a bachelor, Reverend Dave. A local pastor, and a 25 who supports the student in her bachelor, who supports the student in 26 debates. his debates. 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 11 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:12 1 2 Rise Character Jim and Vera. A rural couple of deep God’s Not Dead Character The Robertsons. A rural couple of 3 faith. deep faith. 4 The Sage. A wise elderly woman has The Sage. A wise elderly woman has 5 great insight, but loses her voice and great insight, but loses her voice and 6 becomes mute. becomes mute. 7 8 26. In addition to the striking similarities between God’s Not Dead and 9 Rise described above, God’s Not Dead also strings together a significant number of 10 elements in a particular sequence and combination that is substantially similar to the 11 sequence and combination in which Rise strings together those same elements. Plaintiffs Seek To Find Out Why Defendants’ Movie Is So Similar To Rise. 12 13 27. In 2013, plaintiff Kullberg saw a trailer for God’s Not Dead. Shortly 14 after, a concerned friend sent her a pre-release version. Kullberg saw that God’s Not 15 Dead was substantially similar to Rise. Kullberg and Landon realized that, in the 16 face of the upcoming release of defendants’ substantially similar motion picture, 17 plaintiffs could not move forward with Rise. 18 28. Shortly thereafter, disturbed by the similarities and wondering whether 19 Pure Flix might have had access to Rise through Woody White and Ted Baehr or 20 through some other channel she could not imagine, Kullberg called Pure Flix’s then 21 President Russell Wolfe to discuss her concerns. She offered to come to his Pure 22 Flix office in Scottsdale, Arizona. Kullberg initiated and then pursued this 23 discussion based on her understanding of the teachings in the Book of Matthew, 24 chapter 18, verse 15, which states: 25 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you 26 and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But 27 if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 12 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:13 1 charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If 2 he refused to listen to them, tell it to the church. 3 29. In January 2014, three months before the release of God’s Not Dead, 4 Kullberg met with Wolfe and Vice President Randy Maricle at their office in 5 Scottsdale. Wolfe agreed to discuss similarities with and access to Rise through a 6 series of meetings. As it turned out however, Wolfe met with Kullberg only once. 7 During her one and only meeting with Pure Flix’s executives, Wolfe and Maricle, 8 Kullberg discussed the similarities between Rise and God’s Not Dead. She made it 9 clear that she was concerned about the similarities, and wanted to discuss them with 10 Pure Flix before it released God’s Not Dead. Kullberg genuinely wanted to hear 11 whatever explanation Pure Flix could offer for the similarities. She made it clear 12 that she took no issue with Pure Flix making its own college apologetics movie, but 13 wanted to understand how Pure Flix’s movie had so many extremely concerning 14 similarities, including the story of a young college student who has to debate a 15 popular and charming atheist professor over the course of three debates, who 16 struggles in the first debate, but succeeds in the next two after support and 17 encouragement from characters including an unmarried local pastor, a rural married 18 couple, the atheist professor’s wife who is also the professor’s former student (a 19 lapsed Christian doing some soul-searching of her own) and an international student 20 ally, and manages to persuade many others, including the professor, that God does 21 exist. 22 30. During this meeting, Wolfe agreed that the similarities were striking 23 and alarming. At one point he said, “This blows my mind.” At another point, he 24 said “Whatever we have to do to make this right, we will.” Maricle, however, 25 refused to acknowledge that the similarities justified concern, and said that they 26 must have been coincidental. But neither Wolfe nor Maricle could provide Kullberg 27 with a coherent account of how Pure Flix came up with God’s Not Dead. 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 13 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:14 31. 1 Kullberg stayed in Scottsdale for four days, leaving messages and 2 waiting at her hotel for the next meeting to discuss Pure Flix’s access to her 3 screenplay and its elements. During that time, Wolfe did not initiate any contact 4 with her, or return her calls or emails. 32. 5 Before Kullberg’s flight home, Maricle met Kullberg at a coffee shop. 6 Maricle said that there was a call with the Pure Flix board of directors, the company 7 felt that the similarities were “a coincidence,” and there was nothing more to 8 discuss. Maricle also said the board asked, “What does Kullberg want?” Kullberg 9 responded to Maricle by saying: “For us all to sit down together and find the truth. 10 Then find a proper solution.” Maricle said that they were not interested in doing 11 that. 12 33. Kullberg’s efforts to find out why defendants’ movie is so similar to 13 her screenplay did not end there or then. She spoke with Ted Baehr on the phone on 14 February 13, 2014, asking what he would advise, and what he might know about the 15 origins of God’s Not Dead. She then learned how close Baehr is to the Pure Flix 16 owners, that they are like “family,” and that they often work on stories together, 17 including God’s Not Dead. 18 34. Kullberg later had a private conversation with Baehr at the National 19 Religious Broadcasters convention on February 22, 2014, at which point she 20 believes that he first realized that Rise had been transmitted to him through Woody 21 White. Upon hearing Kullberg had shared the story with Woody, Baehr looked 22 stunned and repeated, twice, “We have to make your movie.” Kullberg replied, “It 23 has just been made.” 24 35. Kullberg also sought out Mike Forshey, a Christian legal advisor who 25 lives in Dallas, for help with some form of conciliation. Forshey asked if the parties 26 could meet to discuss the situation. Pure Flix refused. 27 36. On March 21, 2014, Pure Flix released God’s Not Dead. The film 28 succeeded at the box office, earning over $60 million in the U.S. market. IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 14 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:15 37. 1 Kullberg again wrote Pure Flix. Again based on Mathew 18:15, she 2 asked defendants to engage in a discussion about the situation. They neither 3 acknowledged her letter nor her follow-up email. 38. 4 In September of 2014, Kullberg attended a Veritas event at Dartmouth 5 where John Lennox was speaking. Woody White was also in attendance. Kullberg 6 met privately with Woody and asked if he remembered their 2009 discussion at 7 Harvard about Rise. Woody said, yes, he did remember. Kullberg asked if Woody 8 recalled speaking with Ted Baehr about the story. Woody said that he did 9 remember his call with Baehr. Kullberg asked why he chose to discuss the story 10 with Baehr. Woody said that he was trying to help by making connections (as he 11 often does). Kullberg then explained to Woody the situation that had unfolded. 39. 12 In March of 2015, because Pure Flix refused and failed to come 13 forward with any explanation for the similarities between God’s Not Dead and Rise, 14 ten Christian and church leaders sent a “Letter from the Church to Pure Flix,” signed 15 by respected leaders in college ministries. The letter asked Pure Flix to respond to 16 Kullberg’s concerns. It is attached as Exhibit 5, incorporated here, and states in 17 part: 18 We share these friends’ concerns regarding the attached 100-some 19 similarities of God’s Not Dead with Kullberg’s copyrighted screenplay, 20 Rise, copyrighted 2011. They also know of Pure Flix’ early access to 21 their story, about which Kullberg has repeatedly asked to speak with 22 you. You are aware of their concern since Kullberg and Lennox both 23 approached you months before God’s Not Dead was released in 24 theaters. Given the script comparisons indicating striking similarity to 25 Rise, so much so that one signatory noted the combination of low 26 probability with a tight specification (a tight meaningful pattern), we 27 feel the content and access should be explored for inter-relation. We do 28 not know all the details and hold out the possibility that this is truly IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 15 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:16 1 coincidental; however, given the known access to her story and many 2 substantial similarities, we ask for honesty and transparency to discover 3 the facts of the matter. 4 Pure Flix co-owner and managing partner Michael Scott called Kullberg the next 5 day in response to the letter. That week he agreed to non-binding mediation, 6 however, Pure Flix later retracted that agreement. 7 40. Since initiating discussions with Pure Flix about the origins of God’s 8 Not Dead, Kullberg has been given four different versions of who came up with the 9 premise and wrote the story. Kullberg and Landon have repeatedly asked Pure Flix 10 to explain the origins of God’s Not Dead, and given Pure Flix multiple opportunities 11 to provide a complete account of the origin of the story. Pure Flix has failed and 12 refused to do so. 13 41. Throughout 2015 and 2016, Kullberg and Landon continued to reach 14 out, both directly and through their counsel, asking Pure Flix to agree to mediation 15 or an informal discussion about the origins of God’s Not Dead. These requests were 16 again denied and answered only by Pure Flix’s counsel. 17 CLAIM FOR RELIEF For Copyright Infringement 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-37, as if set forth in full herein. 43. The Rise screenplay constitutes copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C sections 101 et seq. The copyright for the Rise screenplay has been duly registered at the United States Copyright Office. 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, defendants at a very minimum had access to the Rise story through Woody White and Ted Baehr. Given the striking similarities between the works, plaintiffs are informed and 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 16 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:17 1 believe, and thereon allege, this is not the only way defendants had access to Rise. 2 Discovery will reveal full access. 3 45. Defendants have infringed plaintiffs’ exclusive rights in their copyright 4 to the Rise screenplay, in violation of 17 U.S.C. section 106, by, among other acts, 5 preparing unauthorized derivative works of the Rise screenplay in the form of the 6 God’s Not Dead screenplay and motion picture, and revisions thereto; making 7 unauthorized derivative works of the Rise screenplay in the form of the God’s Not 8 Dead screenplay and motion picture and revisions thereto; and distributing copies of 9 the God’s Not Dead screenplay and motion picture and revisions thereto. 10 Defendants have also released a sequel to God’s Not Dead, titled God’s Not Dead 2, 11 which also infringes Rise as, at a minimum, a derivative work. 12 46. Defendants’ infringement of plaintiffs’ copyright of the Rise screenplay 13 has been and continues to be intentional, willful, and with full knowledge of 14 plaintiffs’ rights. 15 47. Defendants’ actions directly and proximately damaged plaintiffs. 16 Defendants’ copyright infringement prevented plaintiffs from making the Rise film 17 and each receiving their 50% interests. 18 19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 20 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows: 21 A. of the Rise screenplay; 22 23 That the Court find that defendants have infringed plaintiffs’ copyright B. That the Court enter judgment for plaintiffs and against defendants and 24 award plaintiffs damages for: 25 1. Plaintiffs’ lost profits from their interests in the Rise film; 26 2. Defendants’ gains, profits, and advantages they have obtained as a result of their acts of direct and secondary copyright 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 17 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case 2:16-cv-03949-R-AS Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:18 1 infringement according to proof, in an amount exceeding $100 2 million; 3. 3 Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the 4 Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. sections 101, et seq. and 17 5 U.S.C. section 505; and, 4. 6 For other such relief as the Court deems just and proper. 7 8 Dated: June 6, 2016 9 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Victor Jih Kim Meyer 10 11 By: /s/ Kim Meyer Kim Meyer Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IRELL & MANELLA LLP A Registered Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 3491965.1 02 - 18 - COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT