13‐920‐cv Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of February, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE RICHARD C. WESLEY, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ EVERETTE HALLFORD,

Plaintiff ‐ Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐920‐cv

FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Peter F. CHERNIN, CHERNIN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Richard Timothy KRING, AKA Tim KRING, Kiefer SUTHERLAND,

Defendants ‐ Appellees,

TAILWIND PRODUCTIONS,

Defendant. ____________________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: JOSEPH D. NOHAVICKA, Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: JONATHAN NEIL STRAUSS (Jonathan Zavin, on the brief), Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, NY. ____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William H. Pauley III, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court be and hereby

is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Everette Hallford brought this action against Fox

Entertainment Group, Inc., and others in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York. Hallford alleges that Defendants’ television show

infringed the copyright in his screenplay. The district court dismissed Hallford’s

complaint by memorandum order and opinion dated February 13, 2013. Hallford

now appeals.

2 We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court

in its opinion.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3