Betty, Inc. v. PepsiCo., Inc.

Background

The court considered Betty, Inc.’s motion asking it to reconsider its November 12, 2019 decision granting PepsiCo, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the available materials show no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The earlier decision concerned Betty’s copyright-infringement and breach-of-contract claims.

Legal Standard

The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The motion is narrowly applied and cannot be used to repeat arguments already considered or present new arguments that could have been raised earlier.

Betty’s Arguments

Betty made three arguments. First, it argued that because its claims had survived PepsiCo’s earlier motion to dismiss, they should also have survived summary judgment. The court rejected that argument because the two motions use different standards. At the pleading stage, the court considers whether the allegations are plausible. At summary judgment, the court considers evidence developed through discovery and decides whether a genuine factual dispute exists. The court stated that it had performed that analysis and concluded that summary judgment for PepsiCo was appropriate.

Second, Betty argued that the court should have compared the overall concept and feel of Betty’s pitch and Pepsi’s halftime commercial instead of breaking the works into components. The court responded that its earlier opinion had already discussed the works’ concept and feel and had not overlooked facts or legal precedent requiring a different result.

Third, Betty argued that if the court had erred on the copyright claim, it had also erred on the breach-of-contract claim. Betty’s argument relied on an assertion that, once PepsiCo decided to use the work, it had a contractual obligation to negotiate an arrangement with Betty. The court found that assertion unsupported and stated that the absence of copyright infringement meant that the alleged use of Betty’s material remained only an allegation, which was insufficient after discovery.

Ruling

The court held that Betty had not shown manifest injustice or another basis for reconsideration of the earlier summary-judgment ruling. The court therefore denied Betty’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the underlying claims beyond its reference to the earlier grant of summary judgment for PepsiCo.