Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 16 pages2 Exhibit A3 Exhibit B4 Civil Cover Sheet5 Civil Cover Sheet
Carter v. Rudinplay, Inc., Docket No. 1:18-cv-00117 (S.D. Ala. Mar 13, 2018), Court Docket
© 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION TONJA B. CARTER, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF NELLE HARPER LEE, Plaintiff, v. RUDINPLAY, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant.
))))))))))))
Civil Action No. 18-cv-117
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Tonja B. Carter, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Nelle Harper Lee, makes the following complaint for a declaratory
judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against Defendant Rudinplay, Inc.:
The Parties
1. Plaintiff Tonja B. Carter (“Ms. Carter”) brings this action in her
capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Nelle Harper Lee. Ms.
Carter is a citizen of Monroe County, Alabama.
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 16
2
2. Nelle Harper Lee (“Ms. Lee”) was a citizen of Monroe County,
Alabama at all times relevant to this action, up to and including her death on
February 19, 2016. She was the author of the novel To Kill a Mockingbird.
3. Defendant Rudinplay, Inc. (“Rudinplay”) is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of New York. Rudinplay is a theater
production company whose principal is producer Scott Rudin (“Mr. Rudin”).
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rudinplay because the claim
asserted in this Complaint arises out of and relates to Rudinplay’s contacts with the
State of Alabama, and Rudinplay purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the State of Alabama.
6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this
district and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is
situated in this district.
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 16
3
Facts
7. To Kill a Mockingbird is a Pulitzer Prize winning novel that has sold
more than 40 million copies and been translated into more than 40 languages since
it was published in 1960. About 1 million copies of the novel are sold each year.
The novel was made into an Oscar-winning movie starring Gregory Peck with a
screenplay by Horton Foote in 1962. The novel was also adapted as a play by
Christopher Sergel. The novel was a valuable asset of Ms. Lee during her lifetime
and is now a valuable asset of her estate.
8. Atticus Finch, the central figure in To Kill a Mockingbird, is an iconic
character in American literature. Based on Ms. Lee’s own father, a small-town
Alabama lawyer who represented black defendants in a criminal trial, Atticus Finch
is portrayed in the novel as a model of wisdom, integrity, and professionalism. He
took on a representation that was unpopular in his community, stood up for his client
in the face of a lynch mob, and provided zealous advocacy at trial—knowing that a
jury in fictional Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s likely would convict a poor black
man accused of raping a white woman. Not just a courageous lawyer, Atticus Finch
was also a wise and compassionate father. In 2002, Book magazine named Atticus
Finch the 7th best character in fiction since 1900.1 In 2003, Atticus Finch was the
1 See https://www.infoplease.com/arts-entertainment/literature-and-books/100 -best-characters-fiction-1900 (visited Mar. 12, 2018) (ranking by a panel of 55 authors, literary agents, editors, and actors).
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 3 of 16
4
Number 1 Hero on the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest Heroes & Villains
list.2 The Alabama State Bar even placed a monument to Atticus Finch, the “lawyer-
hero,” in Monroeville, Alabama in 1997.
The Contract
9. Ms. Lee entered into a contract with Rudinplay as of June 29, 2015, in
connection with the live stage and ancillary rights in and to the novel titled To Kill
a Mockingbird (the “Contract”). A copy of the Contract is attached as Exhibit A.
10. “Novel” is defined in the Contract to be the novel To Kill a
Mockingbird.
11. “Play” as used in the Contract means a live stage play based on and
using the Novel and any and all elements thereof.
12. “Author” as used in the Contract means Ms. Lee.
13. In the Contract, Rudinplay agreed to pay $100,000.00 to obtain an
exclusive agency from Ms. Lee to procure a playwright to create a dramatic adaption
of her Novel and to acquire the sole and exclusive option to acquire exclusive
worldwide live stage rights in and to the Novel (with a specified limitation). For her
part, Ms. Lee agreed that during the period when Rudinplay held live stage rights,
she would not authorize the development, marketing, and/or production of any live
2 See www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/handv100.pdf (visited Mar. 12, 2018).
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 4 of 16
5
stage production or other live show or audiovisual production that is based on the
Novel or any portion thereof.
14. Rudinplay expressly agreed that there would be an annual professional
performance of the Play in Monroeville, Alabama and a restriction against any
license for performances of the Play within 60 miles of Monroeville, Alabama.
15. Rudinplay further agreed that Ms. Lee would receive billing credit for
the Play, with certain exceptions. The billing credit would appear in substantially
the following form: “Based on the novel ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ written by Harper
Lee.”
16. The Contract provides that Rudinplay would pay Ms. Lee certain
royalties and certain net profits resulting from presentation of the Play.
17. Rudinplay also agreed to certain limitations on its selection of the
Playwright and the substance of the Play to be produced.
18. Paragraph 12 of the Contract provides that Ms. Lee shall have “the
absolute and unconditional right to approve the Playwright for the Play,” and “the
exercise of such right shall be within her sole and unfettered discretion.”
19. Paragraph 12 of the Contract further provides that Ms. Lee “shall have
the right to review the script of the Play and to make comments which shall be
considered in good faith by the Playwright.”
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 5 of 16
6
20. Paragraph 12 of the Contract further provides that “the Play shall not
derogate or depart in any manner from the spirit of the Novel nor alter its characters.”
The Present Controversy
21. Rudinplay procured Aaron Sorkin (“Mr. Sorkin”) as the Playwright for
the Play and submitted his name to Ms. Lee for the necessary approval. Ms. Lee
approved Mr. Sorkin as the Playwright for the Play on November 4, 2015.
22. Following the approval of Mr. Sorkin, Rudinplay sent a check dated
November 4, 2015, for $100,000.00 payable to Ms. Lee.
23. After Ms. Lee’s death in February 2016, the Estate became the
successor to Ms. Lee as “Author” under the Contract.
24. On September 13, 2017, Vulture reported on an interview that Kyle
Buchanan conducted with Mr. Sorkin at the Toronto Film Festival. When asked
“how the younger characters Jem, Scout, and Dill are going to speak Sorkin,” Mr.
Sorkin responded, “Well, they’re gonna have to. Because I didn’t write their
language like they were children.”
25. According to Vulture, Mr. Sorkin in the interview also said, “As far as
Atticus and his virtue goes, this is a different take on Mockingbird than Harper Lee’s
or Horton Foote’s. He becomes Atticus Finch by the end of the play, and while he’s
going along, he has a kind of running argument with Calpurnia, the housekeeper,
which is a much bigger role in the play I just wrote. He is in denial about his
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 6 of 16
7
neighbors, and his friends and the world around him, that is as racist as it is, that a
Maycomb County jury could possibly put Tom Robinson in jail when it’s so obvious
what happened here. He becomes an apologist for these people.”
26. The Vulture article also reports, “That adjustment not only gives Atticus
a character journey from naivete to righteousness, it ties the 1930s-set Mockingbird
to today’s social climate.”
27. On September 13, 2017, Playbill published an article about the
interview that Mr. Sorkin gave about the Play. Based on the interview, Playbill
reported, “When the curtain rises on the world premiere of Sorkin’s To Kill a
Mockingbird, audiences won’t encounter the morally sound Atticus Finch they
know.” Playbill also reported that Mr. Sorkin had previously said that it “doesn’t
work at all” to take the scenes that Ms. Lee wrote in the Novel and to dramatize
them.
28. On September 14, 2017, the Estate’s literary agent Andrew Nurnberg
(“Mr. Nurnberg”) sent an email to Mr. Rudin expressing concern about the interview
that Mr. Sorkin had given “before sharing his thoughts (and text) with Nelle’s
family.” Mr. Nurnberg also wrote, “I am aware that this is early days, and that the
current script is not definitive, that you will still be working on this with Aaron. But
for this classic, it is really important that any spin put on the characters, not least
Atticus, does not contradict the author’s image of them and their Weltanschaung.”
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 7 of 16
8
29. On September 14, 2017, Mr. Rudin sent an email responding to Mr.
Nurnberg. Mr. Rudin assured Mr. Nurnberg that “[t]he Atticus of the book is the
Atticus of the novel,” and that “I am never going to fall anywhere outside the
agreement.”
30. Ms. Carter (the Personal Representative of the Estate) first saw a draft
of the Play in mid-September 2017.
31. On or about September 22, 2017, Mr. Nurnberg had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Rudin in which he underlined the importance of sticking to
the original storyline and the characters as in the Novel. Mr. Rudin assured Mr.
Nurnberg that the script was only in draft form and that the text would evolve.
32. On September 25, 2017, Mr. Rudin telephoned Ms. Carter in
Monroeville, Alabama. During that telephone conversation, Ms. Carter expressed
concerns about the script. Among other things, Ms. Carter discussed her concerns
pertaining to the alteration of characters, including Atticus Finch and Calpurnia. Ms.
Carter also expressed a concern about the impact of the addition of two characters
who were not in the Novel. In addition, Ms. Carter expressed a concern that the
script was not consistent with the setting of 1930s small-town Alabama. Mr. Rudin
assured Ms. Carter that he wanted to do the Play right and that he would make sure
that the Estate would be satisfied with the final product.
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 8 of 16
9
33. On September 28, 2017, after speaking with Ms. Carter about her
telephone conversation with Mr. Rudin, Mr. Nurnberg sent an email to Mr. Rudin.
In it, Mr. Nurnberg summarized his understanding that Mr. Rudin was in agreement
with a basic premise: “We are all agreed that the Atticus in the play must remain
the Atticus of the book.”
34. On September 29, 2017, Mr. Rudin responded by email to Mr.
Nurnberg. Mr. Rudin said, “We’re not looking to make any wholesale changes from
what [Ms. Lee] did but simply to dramatize the book, which is sometimes very
passive and more ruminative than dramatic.” He also said, “Remember you are
reading a first draft of this material and that the process of making a play happens in
workshops and rehearsals and previews. It will change and grow as it should.”
35. Mr. Rudin did not send an updated version of the script to Ms. Carter
or Mr. Nurnberg until February 13, 2018, even though Mr. Nurnberg had requested
an updated version prior to that date. Mr. Rudin waited to send the revised script
until shortly before a scheduled meeting with Ms. Carter. Ms. Carter read the entire
revised script on the day that she received it. Rather than addressing the concerns
that Ms. Carter had expressed in September 2017, the new version of the script
exacerbated her concerns.
36. On February 16, 2018, Ms. Carter met with Mr. Rudin for one to two
hours and again expressed serious concerns about the script. At times, the
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 9 of 16
10
conversation was heated. Ms. Carter again expressed her view that the script altered
the characters of Atticus Finch and Calpurnia. She also expressed concerns about
alteration of the characters of Jem Finch and Scout Finch. Ms. Carter also again
stated her view that the script did not present a fair depiction of 1930s small-town
Alabama (as Ms. Lee depicted it in the Novel), and she expressed concerns about
significant alterations of the story pertaining to the legal proceedings against Tom
Robinson. During the meeting, Mr. Rudin resisted the comments that Ms. Carter
was making. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Rudin said that the version of
the script that had been sent to the Estate was a “working draft,” and that the Estate’s
concerns would be considered at a number of upcoming “workshops.”
37. Between February 16, 2018, and March 5, 2018, Rudinplay did not send
a new version of the script to Ms. Carter or Mr. Nurnberg. Nor did Rudinplay
express a willingness to make the substantial revisions to the Play required to bring
it into compliance with Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
38. As a follow-up to the verbal notifications to Mr. Rudin of the Estate’s
concerns that had been provided in September 2017 and February 2018, Ms. Carter
sent a letter to Mr. Rudin on March 5, 2018, giving written notification of the
Estate’s position that the Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel and
that it alters five of the Novel’s characters – Atticus Finch, Calpurnia, Tom
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 10 of 16
11
Robinson, Jem Finch, and Scout Finch (the “March 5 Letter”). A copy of that letter
will be filed under seal as Exhibit B.
39. On March 9, 2018, an attorney for Rudinplay sent a letter to Ms. Carter
responding to the March 5 Letter (the “March 9 Letter”). With regard to the
provision in Paragraph 12 of the Contract that “the Play shall not derogate or depart
in any manner from the spirit of the Novel nor alter its characters,” Rudinplay’s
lawyer asserted that “[e]ven if the Author believes that the Play derogates or departs
from the spirit of the Novel, or alters its characters, the Author’s remedy is that the
Author ‘will be afforded an opportunity to discuss with the Owner [Rudinplay]
resolutions of any such concerns. The Author is therefore not the final arbiter of
what ‘derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel, or alters its characters.’”
Rudinplay thus takes the position that the Estate has no remedy if Rudinplay
breaches this provision of the Contract other than the opportunity for the Estate to
discuss its concerns with Rudinplay.
40. In the March 9 Letter, Rudinplay’s lawyer also denied that the Play
derogates or departs in any manner from the spirit of the Novel, and he denied that
the Play alters any of the Novel’s characters.
41. In the March 9 Letter, Rudinplay’s lawyer, having indicated that the
second and final actors’ workshop with regard to the Play would occur in five weeks,
also stated that “it is unreasonable to expect that extensive changes can be achieved
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 11 of 16
12
five weeks before the second workshop. It simply is no longer possible, even if [Mr.
Rudin] were in agreement with everything in your March 5 letter.”
COUNT ONE – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
42. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges as is set forth in full herein the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 41.
43. There is an actual controversy between the Estate and Rudinplay
concerning:
a. Whether Paragraph 12 of the Contract requires that the Play not
derogate or depart in any manner from the spirit of the Novel nor
alter its characters;
b. Whether Rudinplay has final authority to determine whether the
Play derogates or departs in any manner from the spirit of the
Novel or alters its characters;
c. Whether the Play derogates or departs in any manner from the
spirit of the Novel in its depiction of the legal proceedings against
Tom Robinson;
d. Whether the Play derogates or departs in any manner from the
spirit of the Novel in its depiction of a small Alabama town in the
1930s;
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 12 of 16
13
e. Whether the Play derogates or departs in any manner from the
spirit of the Novel in connection with the other issues raised in the
March 5 Letter;
f. Whether the Play alters the character of Atticus Finch;
g. Whether the Play alters the character of Calpurnia;
h. Whether the Play alters the character of Tom Robinson;
i. Whether the Play alters the character of Jem Finch; and
j. Whether the Play alters the character of Scout Finch.
44. The Estate maintains that:
a. Paragraph 12 of the Contract requires that the Play not derogate or
depart in any manner from the spirit of the Novel nor alter its
characters;
b. Rudinplay does not have final authority to determine whether the
Play derogates or departs in any manner from the spirit of the
Novel or alters its characters;
c. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel in its
depiction of the legal proceedings against Tom Robinson;
d. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel in its
depiction of a small Alabama town in the 1930s;
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 13 of 16
14
e. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel in
connection with the other issues raised in the March 5 Letter;
f. The Play alters the character of Atticus Finch;
g. The Play alters the character of Calpurnia;
h. The Play alters the character of Tom Robinson;
i. The Play alters the character of Jem Finch; and
j. The Play alters the character of Scout Finch.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that the Court
will award the following relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that:
a. Paragraph 12 of the Contract requires that the Play shall not
derogate or depart in any manner from the spirit of the Novel nor
alters its characters, and Rudinplay does not have final authority to
determine whether the Play complies with that requirement.
b. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel and
thereby violates Paragraph 12 of the Contract in connection with
its depiction of the legal proceedings against Tom Robinson.
c. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel and
thereby violates Paragraph 12 of the Contract in connection with
its depiction of a small Alabama town in the 1930s.
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 14 of 16
15
d. The Play derogates or departs from the spirit of the Novel and
thereby violates Paragraph 12 of the Contract in connection with
the other matters identified in the March 5 Letter.
e. The Play alters the character of Atticus Finch and thereby violates
Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
f. The Play alters the character of Calpurnia and thereby violates
Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
g. The Play alters the character of Tom Robinson and thereby violates
Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
h. The Play alters the character of Jem Finch and thereby violates
Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
i. The Play alters the character of Scout Finch and thereby violates
Paragraph 12 of the Contract.
2. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the Contract.
3. An award of costs.
4. Such additional relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
s/ Matthew H. Lembke Matthew H. Lembke Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 15 of 16
16
OF COUNSEL Matthew H. Lembke Jeffrey M. Anderson Ellen Presley Proctor Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2119 Telephone: (205) 521-8000 Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 SERVE COMPLAINT BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO:
Rudinplay, Inc. c/o Mr. Scott Rudin Citrin Cooperman & Co. 529 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10017
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 16 of 16
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT B To Be Filed Under Seal
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-2 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 1
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original
Proceeding2 Removed from
State Court 3 Remanded from
Appellate Court4 Reinstated or
Reopened 5 Transferred from
Another District(specify)
6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer
8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Tonja B. Carter, in her capactiy as Personal Representative of the Estateof Nelle Harper Lee
Monroe County, Alabama
Matthew H. Lembke, Jeffrey M. Anderson, Ellen Presley Proctor; BradleyArant Boult Cummings LLP, 1819 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL35203; (205) 521-8000
Rudinplay, Inc.
New York, New York
Jonathan Zavin; Loeb & Loeb LLP, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY20154; (212) 407-4161
28 U.S.C. 1332(a)
Declaratory judgment concerning compliance with contractual provisions
03/13/2018 /s/ Matthew H. Lembke
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-3 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, useonly the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-3 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 2
lB-CU- I tl-,.!S- B
JS44 (Rev.06n7) CIVIL COVER SHEET
iurpose of''initiaring the civil docket sheet. (S]aE INS'/IRUCIIONS ON Nlixl' PAGli o]t 'I HIS R)ltM)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Tonja B. Carler, in her capactiy as Personal depresentative of the Estateof Nelle Harper Lee
(b) County of i{esidence of First i-isted I'laintiff ltSrySe 9oLl4y-A!9!gmC(EXCIrI'|',IN U.S. PLNN1 ll:t C:ASIIS)
(c) Attornevs (Firu Nome, Atldrass, orul'l alephotc Nilmbcr)
tUdt(trew H. lembke, Jeffrey [\il. Anderson, Ellen Presley Proctor; BradleyArant Boult Cummings LLP, 1819 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL35203, (205) 521-8000
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION 1r'tu"e on "x" inore Boxotltt)
DIIFENDANTS
Rudinplay, lnc.
County of Resiclence o{ First Listed Defendant New York, New York(IN T!.5. PLAINIl},\: (:ASES ONI-Y)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASE-S. USE TIIE LOCATION OFTTIE TRACT OF I-AND INVOI.,VED-
Attorlleys (lJ Knovn)Jonathan Zavin; Loeb & Loeb LLP, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY2A154: (212) 407-4161
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES Otdce dn "x" in onc tloxltr I'taintiJf0;or Dn'ertit)t (.hses (hrlt) and Onc Box-fit- I)efendant)
PTI| DEF I'1-r DElr
Citizen of'l'his State fX t 13 I Incoqroratetl or Princ\ral Place 3 4 J 4ofBusiness In This State
Citizetr ofAtrother State 3 2 O 2 lncorporated ard Pliflcipal Place
ofBusiness [n .Another State
Citizetr or Subjeot ofa D 3 tl 3 fioreign Nation
,l -s ds
Click here for:
I 375 False (llairrrs Actf, 376 C)ui'Iam (31 USC
3'129(t\))a-l 400 State RcapportkrnmentI 4 l0 ,A.ntitrust
5 430 Banks and Bankingi'l 450 CornrnerceD 460 Deportalion3 470 Rackcteer Influenced md
Cotrupt Orgmizations3 480 Consursr Credit
:-l
490 Cableisat TV850 SecuritieJComrnoditiesl
Exchange890 Other Statutory Actions891 ,Agricnltural Acts893 Environlnental Matte$895 lrreedorr of Inlbfl nation
Act896,{rbitration
,l 899 Adrninistrativc Procedure
.ActlReview or Appeal ofAgency Decision
I 950 Constitutionaliry olState Statutes
D I U.S. Goverrunent
Plaintiff
O 2 U.S. GovemnentDefendant
IV. NATURE SUIT
fJ I l0 InsurmceD 120 MarineO 130 Miller ActO 140 Negotiable lrstrumentO 150 ltecovery ofoYeryayment
& Rlforcement ofD 151 N,IedictroAct0 152 Reoovery ofDefaulted
Student l,oans(Excludes Veterans)
D 153 Recovery ofOverpaylrentofvetemn's Benefits
D 160 Stockholdets' Suits
c( 190 other clontract0 195 Contact Product Liability0 196 Franchise
D 210 L,and Condemnation
D 220 Foreclosure
O 230 Rent Lease & EjectnentD 240 Torts to L,and
ll 245 Tort I'roduct LiabilityI 290 A1l 0ther Real Property
C} 3 Federal Question(,!.5. Governnrcnt Nol a P.tfly)
E 4 oiversity(lnd,catc Citkcnship o{Pdrties in lteilt IIA
un "X" iu One []ox
36 36
v.xr
ORIGIN (Plece ail "x' in One Box Onls)
OriginalProceedrng
D 2 Removed fromslate couft
Remanded frornAppellate Court
3 6 lvtultidistrictt,itigation -Transler
J 8 Multidistriclt.itigation -l)ircct !'ile
n3 IJ 4 Reinstated or B 5 'I'ransfened frornReopened Another District
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
VTI. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing 1Do not citeJiltis{lictional statiltes unless diversit!):
Brief description of causeance with contractual ions
CHECK IF THIS IS A CT,ASS Z\CTIONUNDER RUl-El 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DtrMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded tn complairtt:
JLIRY DIiMAND: 3 Yes XNo
BAN.KIII IP'TCI,
J 422 Appeal 28 USC I 58
il 423 Withdrawal28 USC 1 s7
3 625 Drug Related Seizueofl'roperty 2l USC 881
n 690 Other
I 820 Copydghts{] l]30 Patetrt
3 835 l'atent - Abbreviat€dNew Drug Applioation
3 840 I'rademark
PI,RSONAI, INJTIRY0 310 AirylaneO 315 Airplane Product
Liability0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
D 330 Federal Ernployers'Liability
O 340 Mrinefl 345 Maritre Product
t,iabilityil 350 Motor VehicleO 355 Motor Vehicle
Product I"iabilityO 360 Other Personal
Ittjuryil 362 Personal lfiury -
Mediol Maloractice
PI'RSONAI, INJURY0 365 Personal L{ury -
Product l.iabilityO 367 l'{calth Care/
Phmaceuticall'ersonal lnjuryProduct t,iability
D 368 Asbestos PersonalInjuy ProductLiability
PERSONAI, PROPERTYlf 370 Other FraudO 371 thrth inLendirg0 3S0OtherPersonal
Property DarnageO 385 Property Datnage
lkrduct Liability
.:.saG[4&spsgEIDL-ft 861 l.lrA (139511)
U S62BlackLung(923)n 863 DIWC/DIWW (40s(g))3 864 SSID Title X\il3 86s RSI (40s(g))
ESNNPAT- TAY RItrTS',-IIJTI, RII:IITS
ActO 720 Labor'/h4anagement
RelationsD 740 Raihvay Labor Aotll 751 tanily zurd Medical
Leave ActLJ 790 Other L,abor L,itigation
79I EmployeB RettemefltIrcome Security Act
?10 Fair Labor
D 440 Other Civil RightsO 441 Votingi 442 EmploymentO 443 Ikrusinl
Accornmodations
il 445 Arner. w/DisabilitiesEmplo)anent
3 446 Amer. w/DisabilitiesOther
f] 448 Educatior
Ilabeas CorpuslIll 463 Alien Detairrce
n 510 Motions to VacateSentetrce
fl 530 GeneralD 535 Death Penalty
0ther:D 540 Mandannrs & OtlrerD 550 Civil Rightsl, ))) Pnson (lurdrhon
D 56Cl Civil Detainee -Couditions ofConfinemetrt
fl 462 Naturzrlization ApplicatkrnD 465 Other lnurigration
Actions
3 8?0'l'axes (U.S. Ptsinti{Tor Detbndart)
3 871 IRS-Third I'arty26 tJSC 7609
YIII. RELATED CASE(S)III ANY .TUDGE DOCKET NTJMBER
I'UIT UFI'ICII UJb UI\LY
RII.CEIP # AMOTJNI'
(See instruction.t):
APPI-YINC IT.P JUDGL: MAG. JUDCts
DATE
03t13t2018SIGNATLIRE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Matthew H. Lembke
Case 1:18-cv-00117-WS-B Document 1-4 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 1
General Information
Court United States District Court for the Southern District ofAlabama; United States District Court for the Southern Districtof Alabama
Federal Nature of Suit Contract - Other[190]
Docket Number 1:18-cv-00117
Carter v. Rudinplay, Inc., Docket No. 1:18-cv-00117 (S.D. Ala. Mar 13, 2018), Court Docket
© 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 28