Joe Somebody vs Warner/Sony et al 10a

 

SUMMARY 1 – PROCEDURAL FOUNDATION & STRATEGIC POSITIONING

Scope of Summary
This Summary addresses the procedural posture, documentary record, and litigation mechanics reflected in the locked materials. It does not speculate beyond the record. It establishes why the plaintiff’s position was procedurally serious, strategically informed, and legally substantive from the outset.

I. The Plaintiff’s Procedural Posture

The plaintiff entered the litigation not as a passive complainant but as an active procedural actor. The filings reflect deliberate use of motions, requests for entry of default, motions to strike, memoranda of points and authorities, and proposed orders. These were not symbolic filings. They were timed, sequenced, and grounded in specific provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

The record shows repeated invocation of:

• C.C.P. § 430.10 (jurisdictional and sufficiency challenges)
• C.C.P. § 430.60 (demurrer specificity requirements)
• C.C.P. § 473.4(a) (actual notice and default relief standards)
• California Evidence Code §§ 352, 452, 453

This reflects an understanding that litigation is advanced through procedure as much as through narrative.

II. Entry of Default as a Strategic Inflection Point

One of the most significant procedural events documented is the Entry of Default against Kopelson Entertainment. The record reflects that the default was entered by the clerk following a Request for Entry of Default filed on February 24, 2003.

The subsequent actions by defense counsel—including motions to vacate, declarations disputing service, and requests for voluntary withdrawal—demonstrate that the default was not hypothetical. It created real procedural pressure and forced responsive action.

Notably, the plaintiff did not retreat procedurally. Instead, he:

• Filed motions to strike notices of joinder
• Challenged the adequacy of affidavits under oath
• Opposed vacatur by pointing to statutory deficiencies

The litigation posture during this phase shows leverage, not reaction.

III. Documentary Density and Evidentiary Awareness

The materials demonstrate extensive use of proofs of service, declarations under penalty of perjury, docket references, and proposed orders. These are the documents that courts rely on when adjudicating procedural legitimacy.

The plaintiff repeatedly emphasized that facts should control and that peripheral arguments should be disregarded. This insistence appears consistently in memoranda and proposed orders urging the court to focus on the complaint itself rather than distractions.

IV. Subconscious Copyright Theory Introduced with Authority

The locked material includes explicit reliance on established legal scholarship and precedent, including:

• Joel Hollingsworth, Temporal Remoteness Aspect of the Subconscious Copyright Doctrine
• Sheldon v. MGM Picture Corporation (2d Cir. 1936)

This is not casual citation. The doctrine is articulated with its three core requirements:

1. Certainty of access
2. Practical identity of works
3. Low temporal remoteness

The timing of the release of Devil’s Advocate relative to the dissemination of the plaintiff’s letters is identified as legally relevant, not incidental.

V. Character Transformation as Comparative Evidence

The record identifies a specific comparative discrepancy: the transformation of an antagonist role between alleged source material and final film portrayal. This is presented not as rhetoric but as circumstantial evidence of adaptation rather than coincidence.

Importantly, the plaintiff clarifies that neither he nor his character is alleged to have committed wrongdoing. The argument is framed as misappropriation of narrative elements, not personal misconduct.

VI. Strategic Framing of Victory

Victory in this phase is not defined as a single ruling. It is defined as:

• Forcing procedural engagement
• Creating a documented record
• Preserving issues for appeal
• Compelling responses where silence was preferred

The process itself becomes evidentiary. The motions, defaults, responses, and denials form a factual trail that exists independently of ultimate disposition.

VII. Summary Assessment

This first Summary establishes that the plaintiff’s litigation was procedurally literate, strategically intentional, and documentary-rich. The record reflects sustained engagement with statutory law, procedural timing, and evidentiary framing. Whatever later courts may say, the process itself confirms seriousness of purpose and command of litigation mechanics.

This Summary addresses procedural foundation only. Subsequent summaries will examine narrative theory, appellate strategy, and adversarial dynamics in greater depth.