|
Hudson v. Universal Studios, Eddie Murphy, Court Cases and Proceedings
 |
|
 |
|
VICTORY! Hudson "defeats" Universal Studios. On May 4, 2007, Gregory L. Hudson defeated Universal's lead attorney Richard Dunnay, and co-counsel Thomas Kjellberg on ORAL ARGUMENT before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Calabresi, Pooler presiding) in his $75 Million Dollar Copyright Infringement & Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract lawsuit. Dunnay & Universal Studios filed a Rule 12 (b) (6) Motion to Dismiss (and alternativly summary judgment) using a Res Judicata defense and argued that Hudson's case had been previously adjudicated/heard in the Eastern District Court of New York. The 2nd Circuit disagreed and "REMANDED" the case back to the Southern District Court of New York for further proceedings. Without "discovery", Judge Lynch dismissed the case again and Hudson filed a second appeal on June 12, 2009. Dunnay requested (and was granted) an additional 30 days to file appellees' oppositon brief now due August 14, 2009. Case #09-0187-cv, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Hudson's combined $200 million dollar suit alleges that Universal, Eddie Murphy, Heavy D and others used "protected expressions" from his stage plays, NO HARM, NO FOUL and BRONX HOUSE to create the 1999 hit movie entitled, LIFE, starring Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence and breached a contract. |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
$100 Million Dollar lawsuit
New York Author, Poet &
Playwright Gregory L. Hudson
sues Eddie Murphy & Universal
Pictures, Heavy D and other for
$100 million dollars on
April 24, 2002 because they
used "protected expressions"
from his stage play entitled
No Harm, No Foul to create
the hit movie entitled, Life,
starring Eddie Murphy and
Martin Lawrence according
to the suit.
See Hudson v. UniversalPictures
CV-02-2571(EDNY);
03-CV-1008 (FB) (LB)
Gregory is the author of the
newly released book entitled,
Monologues by Gregory L.
Hudson; subtitled, "Dramatic
Monologues For Actors;" and
the soon to be released
book, 48 POEMS: Reflections
Of A Poet.
Gregory recently completed
his 3rd book entitled, SHOWTIME...
(the follow up book to Monologues)
and will complete his 4th book (first
novel) entitled, "Why I Sued Eddie
Murphy" in August 2009.
|
|
|
$75 Million Dollar lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges Robert Ramsey and Matthew Stone "stole 'Protected expressions' from my stage plays, No Harm, No Foul and Bronx House" to create the hit movie Life, starring Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence. Brian Grazer, co-founder of Imagine Films Entertainment along with Eddie Murphy produced "the movie Life"....so I sued them for $75 million dollars for copyright infringement and breach of "Implied-In-Fact" contract on August 30, 2004. See HUDSON V. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS CV-04-6997 (SD |
Attorney Richard Dunnay is
lead counsel for Eddie Murphy,
Universal Studios from the law
firm of Cowan, Liebowitz &
Latman P.C.
 |
Footnote1.pdf429,327 bytes (744 Downloads)
|
Dunnay argues that Hudson's stage play Bronx House is not part of the case in the Eastern District Court for Hudson's stage play Bronx House. |
|
|
Writers Who Sued Eddie Murphy For Copyright Infringement
New York Playwright, Gregory L. Hudson
joins a long list of other writers who have sued actor/comedian Eddie Murphy for Copyright Infringement. Hudson's complaints alleged that Murphy and others used his stage plays, No Harm, No Foul and Bronx House to make the hit movie LIFE, starring Murphy, Martin Lawarnce, Bernie Mac, Heavy D and others.
The most publized copyright infringement lawsuit against Murphy was for the hit movie, Coming To America. In 1988, Humorist Art Buchwald sued Murphy and Paramount Pictures for using his work to create the movie starring Murphy and longtime pal, Arsenio Hall. Several other writers have sued Murphy for stealing their work:
Life: April 24, 2002 - Hudson's Lawyer Files a one Hundred Million Dollar Copyright Infringement and Breach of Contract Lawsuit against Murphy, Heavy D, Universal Pix, and others in the Eastern District Court of New York.
|
|
|
$25 Million Dollar Default Judgment
Hudson sues Heavy D for $25M dollars for "Default Judgment" for not answering a summons and never appearing in court in Hudson's $100M dollar lawsuit for the movie Life, starring Eddie Murphy, Heavy D and others. |
"I Hand delivered my plays, No Harm, No Foul, Bronx House and other materials to Heavy D at the Seagrams Building in Manhattan New York when he was CEO of Uptown Records which was a record label under Universal Music Group which is owned by Universal Studios and... the movie Life was produced by Universal Pictures.
Above, Heavy D appears as Jake in the opening scene in the grave yard in the movie Life. Ironiclly, this scene was copied from the "signature scene" in my play, No Harm, No Foul so...I sued Heavy D." He never answered the summons and complaint so I filed a $25,000.000.00 DEFAULT JUDGMENT against him; of which I am still awaiting the courts to issue. (Posted July 21, 2009) |
|
|
Attorney Thomas Kjellberg is
co-counsel for Eddie Murphy,
Universal Studios from the
law firm of Cowan,
Liebowitz & Latman P.C.
|
Page8Reply.pdf199,495 bytes (676 Downloads)
|
Thomas Kjellberg (co-counsel for the Defendants) admits that Hudson's stage play entitled Bronx House "was not properly before the Court" in the Eastern District Court of New York. |
|
Coming To America: 1988
- Does Coming to America and is immediately hit with a $10M US copyright lawsuit.
Judge rules Paramount must pay Buchwald $250,000 and 19% of the net profits of Coming To America.
1992 - Buchwald won a $900,000.00 judgment against Paramount
|
|
|
United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom Precluded Hudson from adding his stage play drama entitled, Bronx House to his case in the Eastern District Court of New York and
yet the Southern District Court of New York ruled that Hudson was not precluded. Open the file below and read Judge Bloom's order for yourself! |
Page40Trans.pdf124,093 bytes (650 Downloads)
|
Magistrate Judge Bloom makes it entirely clear that Hudson's play entitle "Bronx House" is not part of the No Harm, No Foul case pending before her in the Eastern District Court of New York. |
Harlem Nights: 1989
- Sued for 35$M by a screenwriter contending Murphy stole material from him for Harlem Nights.
|
|
|
|
Life: February 2, 2003 - Hudson fires his attorney on December 13, 2002 and files a new One Hundred Million Dollar Copyright Infringement and UnFair Competion lawsuit in the Eastern District Court in New York.
Life: August 28, 2004 - Hudson files a Seventy-Five Million Dollar plus copyright infringement and Breach of Implied-Contract lawsuit against Murphy in the Southern District Court of New York.
|
Other copyright lawsuits continue below. |
Nutty Professor: - 1996 - Brothers Steven and William Patrick of New York claim Murphy and Universal Studios stole a screenplay entitled Brand New Me that was rejected. The Lawsuit sought $15M million. |
PJs: 2002 - According to a report in reuters, Eddie Murphy and other producers of the animated series are being sued fro more than $10M dollars in damages. |
|
|
Summer of 1996: Hudson hand-delivers scripts to Heavy D at his Uptown Records office and to Jimmy Jenkins at J Luv's Entertainment.
July 1, 1996: Hudson recieves telephone calls from sherill Jenkins about his scripts.
|
July 28, 1996: Sherill Jenkins via a 28 minute telephone call arranges an August 1996 meeting between Hudson and others to discuss his plays and to hire Hudson to write movies and television series for them.
April 1999: The movie Life is relesed by Universal Pictures and led the box-office with $20,000,000.00.
Summer 2000: Hudson sees the movie Life on cable T.V. and realizes that No Harm, No Foul was used to create Life without his authorization. Hudson realized that Heavy D's opening "graveyard scene" was strikingly similar to the "signature scene" his play No Harm, No Foul.
Late 2001: Hudson consults with attorney Mirna L. White of the Law Offices of Adams, Douglas & White.
April 24, 2002: Ms. White files a $100M dollar copyright infringement lawsuit against Universal Studios and others on Hudson's behalf.
HEAVY D NEVER RESPONDS TO THE LAWSUIT.
March 29, 2004: Hudson files a $25,000,000.00 motion for "Default Judgment" against Heavy D.
HEAVY D NEVER RESPONDS.
April 29, 2004: Court dismissed the $25, 000,000.00 motion for default judgment agains Heavy D. |
|
|
| Bronx House
June 3, 2007: Hudson defeats Universal Studios' lead attorney Richard Dunnay on Oral Argument before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the case is remanded back to the Southern District Court of New York for futher proceedings.
August 30, 2004: Hudson files a $75M dollar copyright and breach of Implied-In-fact contract in the Southern District Court of New York.
December 8, 2004: The parties argue before the Honorable District Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Judge Lynch STAYED all actions on the case pending the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
April 4, 2005: defendants' attorney Richard Dunnay informed the (SDNY) Court of the 2nd Circuits' affirmation.
April 5, 2005: Hudson responded to (SDNY) Dunnay's memo and the 2nd circuits' affirmation.
April 18, 2005: Judge Lynch vacated the December 8, 2004 Stay. (Bronx House)
April 27, 2005; Hudson move to proceed with discovery.
May 6, 2005: Mr. Dunnay request (SDNY) permission to file a motion to dismiss Hudson complaint (Bronx House) the grounds of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
May 6, 2005: The Court Endorsed Mr. Dunnay's request to file a motion to dismiss.
May 9, 2005: Hudson filed an objection (SDNY) to Mr. Dunnay's request for permission to dismiss. Court did not respond to Hudson's objection.
May 9, 2005: Hudson moves to have Court order defendants attorneys to meet and confer and establish a case management plan as prescribed by the court. No Response from the Court. |
|
|
|
May 16, 2005: Defendants' co-counsel, Thomas Kjellberg submit a proposed briefing schedule.
May 18, 2005: Hudson objects and request a ruling on his objection to the defendants' request to dismiss the complaint.. No response from the Court .
May 18, ,2005: Dunnay submit proposed briefing schedule to the Court.
May 20, 2005: Hudson request a pre-motion conference to the Court. No response from the Court.
September 30, 2006: Hudson files a motion to strike about 80% of attorney kjellberg's declaration in support of the motion to dismiss.
November 15, 2005: Hudson file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
February 17, 2006: Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz issues a Report & Recommendation to istrict Judge Gerard E. Lynch recommending the dismissal of Hudson complaint and motion to strike.
March 20, 2006: Hudson files an objecation to Judge Katz's Report & Recommendation.
March 31, 2006: Defendants files a response to Hudson's objecation to the Report & Recommendation.
April 3, 2006: Hudson request an oral argument to clarify any misunderstanding regarding his objection motion.
April 14, 2006: Request to argue is denied. Court states that both sides are clearly stated in their papers.
May 1, 2006: District Court issues an Opinion & Order ("O&P") dismissing Hudson's Complaint. O&P will be posted on Hudson v. Universal Studios (Bronx House) page.
|
|
|
|
May 7, 2006: Hudson immediately filed a Notice of Appeal. Since Hudson was not notified by the Court that his claim was dismissed, he did not have the opportunity to file a motion to reargue or challange the Court's decision.
October 13, 2006: Hudson filed his appeal brief and appendix to the 2nd Clircuit Court of Appeal.
November 13, 2006: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman P.C. filed their opposition brief & appendix.
May 4, 2007: Hudson and Dunnay argued before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
May 30, 2007: The 2nd Circuit rules in Hudson's favor and REMAND his case back to the Southern District Court of New York for further proceedings.
June 1, 2005: Dunnay objects to Hudson's request for conference.
June 7, 2005: Hudson submit his own briefing schedule.
June 8, 2005: Dunnay informs the Court that he would agree to Hudson's briefing schedule.
June 8, 2005: The Court endorses Dunnay's proposed briefing schedule and rejects Hudson's.
June 17, 2005: Dunnay informs the Court that he preferred Hudson's briefing schedule as posed to his own briefing schedule.
June 20, 2005: Court Submits its own schedule.
September 13, 2005: Defendants files motion to dismiss lawsuit on the sole ground of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
August 8, 2007: Defendants' refiled a Rule 56 Motion to Dismiss Hudson complaint after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their Rule 12 (12) (b) (6) Motion to Dismiss.
|
|
|
August 10, 2007: The SDNY court granted the Defendants permission to refile their Rule 56 Motion to Dismiss Hudson's complaint; even though the Appeals court Remanded the case back for "further Proceeding," no discovery or otherwise took place. Court ordered Hudson to Respond by September 14, 2007.
August 20, 2007: Hudson requested his response date be changed to December 14, 2007 to give him adquate time to respond.
August 21, 2007: Defendants requested that their reply date be changed to January 11, 2008 if the court granted Hudson's request.
September 17, 2007: Hudson filed a Motion to Proceed with Discovery & to Stay the Court's Order.
September 26, 2007: The Court DENIED Hudson's Motion to Proceed with Discovery & Stay Proceedings and "Ordered Hudson to "Respond to the Motion by October 26, 2007.
October 25, 2007: Hudson filed his opposition papers with the court and served the defendants.
November 9, 2007: Defendant's filed their reply to Hudson's opposition.
October 29, 2008: Hudsostating that the Court dismissed his complaint on October 23, 2008, but did not provide Hudson with a copy of the court's decision.
October 30, 2008: Hudson received a faxed copy of the Court's ruling from the defendants'
attorneys, not from the court.
November, 1, 2008: Almost 2 weeks after the court dismissed Hudson's complaint, Hudson recieved a copy of the court order.
NO REQUEST FOR REARGUMENT SUBMITTED. NOT ENOUGH TIME TO PROPERLY PREPARE MOTION.
November 7, 2007: Hudson received faxed copy of Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees. |
|
|
|
|
|
| BRONX HOUSE MOTIONS & BRIEFS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The defendants' 12 (b) (6) motion to dismiss Hudson's complaint and in the alternative for a Rule 56 (c) summary judgment was submitted on September 13, 2005; Hudson filed an opposition on November 16, 2005; Lynch dismissed Hudson's complaint on April 28, 2006. Lynch's dismissal of Hudson's complaint was REMANDED on May 30, 2007 for further proceeding by 2nd Circuit Judges, Sotomayor, Calabresi & Pooler. Judge Lynch barred Hudson from discovery and ordered Hudson to file another opposition to the defendants' same brief which was previously REMANDED. Hudson filed a second opposition to the September 13, 2005 motion (same motion previously REMANDED) on October 26, 2007 and on October 23, 2008, Lynch dismissed Hudson's complaint again. Hudson immediately filed another appeal, submitted his appeal brief & appendix on June 12, 2009 and now PENDING is a second opposition brief & apendix from the appellees due on August 14, 2009 to the 2nd Circuit of Appeals, as a result of a 30 day extension request by appellees to answer Hudson's appeal brief) . |
|
|
AppellateCourtBrief.pdf11,777,475 bytes (163 Downloads)
|
Hudson's Appellate Brief:
June 12, 2009 |
|
|
DefsmemofLawtoDismissBronxHouse.pdf4,984,527 bytes (168 Downloads)
|
Defendants' Rule 12 (b)Memorandum of Law and alternative Rule 56 Summary Judgment Motion to Dismiss Hudson's Bronx House Complaint. |
|
|
2nd Circuit Court of New York SUMMARY ORDER ruling in Hudson's favor. |
2ndSum.Ord.Remanded.pdf1,408,400 bytes (480 Downloads)
|
Judge SOTOMAYOR and 2nd Cir.rules
in Hudson's favor on May 30,2007
and REMAND his case back to the
SDNY Court. |
|
|
The Southern District Court of New York Opinion & Order dismissing Hudson's complaint (Hudson III) Bronx House claims on the ground or Res Judicata. |
LynchOP.pdf793,888 bytes (475 Downloads)
|
On April 28, 2006,Judge Lynch's
Order & Opinion dismissing Hudson's
Bronx House complaint on the
grounds of "Res Judicata and/or in the alternative for summary judgment. |
|
|
DefsmemofLawtoDismissBronxHouse.pdf4,984,527 bytes (466 Downloads)
|
Defendants' Rule 12 (b)Memorandum of Law and subquently Rule 56 Summary Judgment Motion to Dismiss Hudson's Bronx House Complaint. |
|
|
BxHmem.opposingmot.todismiss.pdf1,555,909 bytes (468 Downloads)
|
Hudson's Bronx House Opposition Motion to the Defendant's Rule 12 (b) (6) Motion to Dismiss his complaint and in the alternative for summary judgment. |
|
|
DefsReplyMemBxH.pdf2,298,326 bytes (430 Downloads)
|
Defendants' Rule 56 Reply to Hudson's Opposition Motion to Dismiss his Bronx House Claim filed after the 2nd Circuit REMANDED the Defendant's Rule 12 (b) Motion to dismiss Hudson's Bronx House claim. |
|
|
PltsOpptoRule56.pdf4,465,272 bytes (442 Downloads)
|
Hudson's oppostion Motion to the Defendants' Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed after their Rule 12 (b) Motion to Dismiss Hudson Bronx House claim was REMANDED by the 2nd Cirucit Court of Appeals. |
|
| No Harm, No Foul (a/k/a Hudson II) |
|
|
No Harm, No Foul
Summer of 1996: Hudson hand-deliver scripts to Heavy D at Uptown Records
and to Jimmy Jenkins at J Luv's Entertainment.
July 1, 1996: Hudson recieves telephone calls from sherill Jenkins about
his scripts.
July 28,1996: Sherill Jenkins via a 28 minute telephone call arranges an August 1996 meeting between Hudson and others to discuss his plays and to hire Hudson to write movies and Television series for them.
April 1999: The movie Life is released and led the box-office $20,000,000.00 dollars.
Summer 2000: Hudson sees the movie Life on cable T.V. and realizes that No Harm, No Foul was used to create Life without his authorization. Hudson realized that Heavy D's opening graveyard scene in the movie was "strikingly similar" to the "signature scene" in No Harm, No Foul.
Late 2001: Hudson consult with attorney Mirna White or the Law Offices of Adams Douglas & White.
April 24, 2002: Ms. White files a $100M dollar copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of Hudson.
June 2002: Ms White tells Hudson that the defendants had not answered the complaint.
|
|
|
July 2002: Ms White fax Hudson two letters from the defendant's on U.S. Copyright Office letterhead stating that Hudson's copyright certificate had been canceled and/or halted. Hudson immediately fights this claim and files for a new certificate.
August 2003: Copyright Office issues Hudson another certificate dated July 16, 2002.
October 1, 2002: Ms. White have Hudson withdraw his lawsuit on the condition she would re-file it wilthin a few weeks.
October 2, 2002: Ms. White and opposing counsel agrees on a stipulation to wilthdraw Hudson's complaint. After the dismissal of Hudson's complaint, Hudson has a very difficult time contacting Ms. White.
December 13, 2002: Hudson fires Ms. White.
CV-03-1008 (EDNY)
February 28, 2003: Hudson files a new $100M dollar copyright infringement lawsuit; representing himself as a Pro Se Litigant.
August 1, 2003: Hudson hires Ms. Claudio Baio of Baio & Associates in Connecticutt to represent him.
|
|
|
September 2003: Ms. Baio tries to recuse herself from the case and is adnonished by Magistrate Judge Bloom before she grants the recusal.
May 5, 2004: Hudson apears before the Brooklyn Bar Association to get his case files back from Ms. White.
May 5, 2004: District Judge Block enters judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing Hudson's complaint on summary judgment.
May 14, 2004: Dunnay files a Motion for Attorneys' Fees claiming: $98,458.00 in attorney fees and 3,944.84 in related expenses.
May 20 2004: Hudson files a notice of Appeal and a few days later he is informed by the appeals clerk that all of his case files are missing with the exception of six (6) documents.
May 25, 2004: Judge Block denied Dunnay's Motion for Attorney Fees and related expenses.
August 30, 2004: Hudson files a separate $75M dollar copyright lawsuit in the Southern District Court of New York.
March 18, 2005: Hudson argued his case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
April 1, 2005: The Court of Appeals Affirmed the District Court's decision in favor of the Defendants.
August 27 2005: Hudson filed for a Petition for a Writ of Certioria to the Supreme Court of the United States.
February 10, 2006: Hudson's Petition for a Writ of Certioria was placed on the docket (#05-1009) of the Supreme Court of the United States.
February 13, 2006: Richard Dunnay (Attorney for the Defendants') filed a "WAIVER" under Rule 15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and waive the Defendants' right to oppose Hudson's petition.
February 18, 2006: Hudson countered Dunnay's waiver by filing an application, pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, to Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and requested "pusuante to Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that attorney Richard Dunnay & Thomas Kjellberg be "ORDERED" to show cause "why disciplinary action should not be taken against them." No response from the Supreme Court.
April 17, 2006: Supreme Court denied Hudson's certificate.
Hudson did not file a request for a rehearing. Hudson has chosen an alternative route to pursue his claim as he awaits his pending appeal in the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals for his complaint in the Southern District Court of New York.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Below are some photographs that were submitted into evidence by Hudson. Judge Frederick Block of the Eastern District Court of New York somehow ruled that there were "no protectible substantial similarities" between Hudson's play No Harm, No Foul and the moive Life. Hudson submitted about 65 photographs which clearly shows nearly identical similarities. Decide for yourself if these photographs are similar, dissimilar, substantially similar or strikingly similar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2ndCircuitsSummaryOrder.pdf355,293 bytes (449 Downloads)
|
2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals Summary Order
Affirming the EDNY
Court's decision in Hudson's No Harm, No Foul complaint,
although both Courts
denied Hudson the
Right to AMEND his
complaint to include
his play Bronx House. |
|
|
BlocksjudgmentforDefs.pdf1,764,890 bytes
|
EDNY Court Order Dismissing Hudson's lawsuit
HUDSON II No Harm,No Foul "without conducting a detail comparison of the two works," as required by law and "totally disregarded the photographs" which clearly show "striking similarity" between the characters in No Harm, No Foul, & Life. The court also illegally dismissed Hudson's $25 Million dollar "default judgment" against Heavy D, a/k/a Dwight Meyers who never answered the lawsuit; the 2nd circuit court of appeals affirmed this blatant illegal ruling and so did the Supreme Court of the United States. |
|
|
|
This space is reserved for Hudson's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States |
|
|
SupremeCourtDocket051009.pdf71,229 bytes
|
Feb. 10, 2006: Hudson v. Universal Pictures is placed on the Supreme Court's Docket. (#05-1009) |
|
|
|
