Daniher v. Pixar Animation Studios

Background

Sweet Cicely Daniher filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court, asserting state-law claims against Pixar Animation Studios, Pixar Talking Pictures, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, and Kori Rae. She alleged that Pixar improperly used her unicorn-painted 1972 Chevrolet G10 van, which she called the “Vanicorn,” in the 2020 animated film Onward.

Daniher alleged that she leased the Vanicorn to Pixar for a three-and-a-half-day period connected to a Pixar event. According to the complaint, Pixar represented that the van would be used only as a visual prop at the event. The lease stated that Pixar would rent the vehicle in connection with the production and included provisions giving Pixar ownership of rights arising from the vehicle’s use in the production.

Daniher later discovered that Onward featured a van character resembling the Vanicorn. She previously filed a copyright-infringement action in federal court, but voluntarily dismissed it after Pixar’s counsel asserted that she did not have a viable copyright claim. She then filed this state-court action, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

Pixar removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal copyright law completely preempted at least one of Daniher’s state-law claims. Complete preemption is a doctrine that can allow removal when federal law replaces a state-law claim and creates federal-question jurisdiction. Daniher moved to remand, or return, the case to state court.

Waiver of Removal

Daniher argued that Pixar waived its right to remove because, during the earlier federal copyright action, Pixar argued that she did not have a copyright claim. The court rejected that argument. It explained that waiver requires conduct in state court showing a clear and unequivocal intent to have the matter decided there. Pixar’s conduct in the prior federal action was not conduct in state court and did not show such an intent. The court therefore found that Pixar did not waive its right to remove this case.

Copyright Preemption

The court applied the two-part test under 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). First, the claim must concern a work within the subject matter of copyright. Second, the claim must assert rights equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by copyright. A state-law claim is not preempted if it includes an “extra element”—an element that makes the asserted right qualitatively different from a copyright right.

The court agreed with Pixar that the Vanicorn was the kind of work covered by the Copyright Act for preemption purposes. The relevant question was whether the work fit within a copyrightable category, not whether Daniher actually owned an enforceable copyright or had registered one. The court found that the Vanicorn, including its mural, fell within the subject matter of copyright.

The court then held that Pixar had shown that Daniher’s unjust-enrichment claim was preempted. That claim was based on Pixar’s alleged benefit from using the Vanicorn as a central character in Onward without paying Daniher for that use. The court found no extra element that made the claim qualitatively different from a copyright claim.

The court did not decide whether Daniher’s other claims were preempted. Because preemption of any one claim was enough to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire complaint and require denial of remand, the court did not address the other claims’ preemption status.

Disposition

The court denied Daniher’s motion to remand. The opinion did not dismiss any claim or decide the ultimate merits of the underlying claims.