Whether industry standards and customs should be considered as a factor during the analysis of perceived intent and duty of the implied contract parties of screenwriting idea submission cases

Questions Presented for Review 2 | ° 3 | Question 1: The 9" Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (henceforth CoA9) has a long 4 | settled screenwriting case law regarding Desny claims or “idea submission implied contract” ; 5 | cases that the 2" Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (henceforth CoA2) has come to 6 support based on an evaluation of industry standards and customs. Other circuits, including the 7 | 7 Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (henceforth CoA7), do not place any weight on 8 | such industry standards and customs when evaluating these types of implied contracts. I.e., due 9 | to industry standards for screenwriting idea submissions some circuits feel that “an implied-in10 | fact contract may be created where the plaintiff submits an idea (the offer) that the defendant — 11 | subsequently uses (the acceptance) without compensating the plaintiff (the breach)”, while other 12 | circuits disregard industry customs for idea submissions and hold that an implied-in-fact contract 13 | is based upon whether “at the time the services were rendered, one party expected to receive 14 | payment and the other party intended to make payment.” Thus, we have a circuit split regarding 15 | whether industry standards and customs should be considered as a factor during the analysis of 16 | perceived intent and duty of the implied contract parties of screenwriting idea submission cases. 17 | This split has adversely affected petitioner’s intellectual property. It calls for the Supreme 18 | Court’s attention. 19 20 | Question 2: The Supreme Court of the United States (henceforth SCOTUS) has clearly 21 | distinguished Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(b)(1) motions. Can a court that has chosen to ignore this 22 distinction declare that a party is unlikely to have the ability to cobble together a viable 23 | complaint and yet not exercise its discretion to be lenient on the timeliness of a Federal Rules of 24 | Civil Procedure (henceforth F.R.C.P.) rule 60(b) motion based on the consideration of the 25 | practical ability of ‘the litigant. This disregard for the F.R.C.P. is a violation of petitioner’s due 26 | process of law. : 27 | , Petition for a Writ of Certiorari ii i 1 | Parties to the case 2 | 3 | Please be advised that aside from petitioner, Antonio Vernon, there are no respondent parties of 4 | record to the case. A full explanation of this can be found in CoA7 docket item #4 as the third 5 | item of clarification. In summary, petitioner served a superset of the parties below several times 6 | via United States Postal Service using Stamps.com (usually with e-tracking). None chose to enter 7 | by responding. The case has gone forth ex parte on sua sponte orders about the viability of my 8 | complaint. 9 | ‘ 10 | CBS Television Studios . 27 Dare to Pass iW | Legal Department 28 1117 Olvera Way 12 | Administration Bldg. Ste. 410 29 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-0557 13 | 4024 Radford Ave. 30 : 14 | Studio City, CA 91604 -2101 31 Cinema Gypsy 15] 32 4116 W Magnolia Blvd. 16 | Lawrence Tu, General Counsel 33 Burbank, CA 91505 17} CBS Corporation 34 18 | 51 West 52nd Street 35 Laurence Fishburne 19 | New York, NY 10019-6188 36 Paradigm Talent Agency 20 37 360 North Crescent Dr. 21 | Anthony E. Zuiker North Bldg. 22 | c/o Margaret Riley Beverly Hills, CA 90210-2500 23 | Lighthouse Management & Media 24 | 9000 West Sunset Blvd. Suite 1520 Rose Catherine Pinkney 25 || West Hollywood, CA 90069 142 S Edinburgh Ave 26 Los Angeles, CA 90048-3606 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari ii 1 | Please note that while the above is a complete list of potential