Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/04/2020 02:09 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Watson,Deputy Clerk

1 BRUCE H. SING MAN (State Bar No: 583 l 7)

Post Office Box 1350
2 Pacific Palisades, California 90272
Phone: (3 I0) 486-0995
3 Pro Se

4
5
6
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALTFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 BRUCE H. SINGMAN ) CASE NO: 20SMCV00748
)
12 Plaintiff, BRUCE H. SfNGMAN'S )PLAlN'nFF
13 )NOTICE Of OPPOSITION AND
)OPPOSITION TO MOTTON OF
14 v. )DEFENDANT IMDB.COM, JNC.'S
)SPECIAL MOTION TO STRJKE TF-TE
15 )COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
)CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLA.PP STATUTE
16 IMDB, COM, lNC. and )(CCP SEC. 425.1 6)
17 DOES I through I0, Inclusive, )
Defendants. )
18 ) Judge: HON. ELAINE W. MANDEL
) Dept.: P
19 ) Date: September 16, 2020
20
) Time: 8:30 A.M.
)
21 ) Reservation No. Court Provided Scheduled
) Date via Telephone Call
22 ) Action Filed: May 29, 2020
_ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ , Trial Date: None Set
23
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR A'ITORNEYS OF RECORD:
24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 16, 2020 at 8:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter
25
as the matter may be heard before the Ho11orabie ELAINE W. MANDEL in Department P of the
26 above-reforenced Court located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, BRUCE H.
27 SINGMAN ("Plaintiff") will and hereby does Oppose the Motion of Defendant TMDB.COM,
INC. to Strike the Complaint of Plaintiff BRUCE H. SJNGMAN for Declaratory Relief pursuant
28 to Cal.ifornia's anti-SLAPP Statute (Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16).
1
OPPOSITION OF PLANTIFF BRUCE H. SINGMAN TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRJK.E THE
COtvlPLAINT PVRSANT ·ro CA.LIFOR}IJA'S ANTr-SLA pp STATUTE /CCP. SEC. 425. I6)
 1 Tb.is Opposition to lhe Motion of Defendant lMDB.COM, INC. to Strike the Complaint of
2 Plaintiff BRUCE H. SrNGMAN for Declaratory Relief is made upon the grounds thal the common

3 law of the State of California pertaining to business torts provides for the pursuit by an iajured

4 paiiy of damages caused by another party interfering witb contractual relations between the

5 injured party and a third party and does not arise from constitutionally-protected, privileged
6 communications made in anticipation of litigation contemplated in good faith and under serious
7 consideration and that Plaintiff can and will prevail on bis claim as a matter of law on the basis of

8 bis meritorious cause of action in wbich he a.lleges all of the elements required by all of the cases
9 in which Plaintiffs have prevailed when suing for declaratory rel ief as the action is not against a

10 party but is to obtain direction for both the Plaintiff and the Defenda11t. Code of Civil Procedure
11 Section 425.16 was enacted by the legislature to put a stop to developers and large corporations

l2 abusing the judicial process by suing pel'Sons aud entities of limited means in an effort lO compel

13 those defendants to abandon the right to free speech. The purpose of such suits was to impose the

14 f'mancial burden of extensive discovery and legal fees upon those who would publicly question

.LS developers and large corporations and the like. Plaintiff's action is a Complaint for Declaratory

16 Relief agai11st a large corporation which purports to be suffering because a third party bas p laced
17 wrongful infonnation in the listing of Plaintiff's movie with the very wealchy Defendant

18 IMDB.COM, INC. 'S movie data base IMDB.com and tl1e Complaint alleges every single element
19 required to state such a cause of action for declaratory relief and Plaintiff has demonstratc.-d and

20 established thal there is a high probabi lity that Plaintiff ""ill prevail in his claim and that
21 Defendant cannot support an argument that tbe Complaint is not legally sufficient and does not
22 state a cause of action which is plausible on its face. Defendant cannot make a threshold showing

23 that Plaintifl's Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is one arising from activity protec(ed by

24 Code of Civil Procedme Sec1ion 425.16. Since the enactment of Code of Civi l Procedure Section
25 425.16, the Caluornia Legislature found and has declared that there has been a d isturbing increase

26 in law suits brought primarily to chill the va.lid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of

27 speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The legislatW'c found and declared that it is in
28 the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public signi.ficance and that
2
OPPOSITION OF PLANTIFF BKUCE H . SfNGMAN TO OEl'ENDANT TMD·B.COM, INC.'s MOTION TO
STRIKE TH£ COMPLAINT PURSANT TO CALIFORNIA 'S ANTT-SLAPP STAl'UTE (CCP. SEC. 425,16)
 this participation should not be chiUed through abuse of the judicial process. To this end this

2 Section of the Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 should be construed broadly.

3 As set forth herein-below, Plaintiff can show a reasonable probability of prevailing and
4 that Plaintiff has complained about the posting of wrongful and damaging information which bas

S caused him substantial monetary damages which does not eveu come withi n the category of
6 freedom of speech. Accordingly, Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN requests that tbis Court enter an

7 Order: denying Defendant' s Motion to Strike the Complaint of Plaintiff pursuant to Cal ifornia's

8 anti-SLAPP Statute i.e. Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and the demurrer filed by Defendant in
9 conjunction with Defendant lMDB.COM, INC' s Notice of Motion and Special Motion to Strike

10 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16; requiring Defendant lJ\fDB.COM,
11 INC. ro file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory ReLief; and imposing sanctions on

12 Defendants' legal counsel in the amow1t of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) on the grounds

13 that: Defendant's Motion was not reasonably made as the California anti-SLAPP Statute is not
14 applicable to Plaintiffs Complaint as Plaintiffs Complaint is based on the co=on law of

15 California pertaining to business torts as described hereinabove and tbal counsel for the Defendant

16 bas filed this frivolous anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint sirnply for the purposes

17 of harassment and delay. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d

18 1118, 1126 (270 Cal. Reporter l. 79 I P.2d 587 (internal citations om itted.) and Rest.'lt.<>mcnt
19 Second of Torts, section 766A; and that Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint was filed
20 simply for tl1e purposes of harassment and delay.
21 Th is Opposition to the Motion ofDefendantJMDB.COM, INC. to Strike the Complaint of

22 Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN is based on this Notice of Opposition and the Declarations of

23 PlainliffBRUCE H. SINGMAN filed concurrently with this Opposition, all oftbe p leadings, files

24 and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which this Court may take judic ial notice aod

25 any arguments or evidence that may be presented to or considered. by the Court prior to its ruling.
26 DATED: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
27 L · ..
28 By::4~~~~~~~~~

OPPOSrnm-! OF PLA.l.'fnff BRUCE H. SINGMAN TO DEF!::NDANT IMD8.COl1, INC.'s MOTION TO

STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSANT TO CALIFORNLA 'S ANTr-SLAPP STATU I E /CCP. SEC. 425. 161
 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 1. TI,is Complaint consists of a cause of action brought by Plaintiff BRUCE H. SING MAN

3 (''P laintiff') against Defendant IMDB.COM, JNC. ("Defendant") resulting from Defendant' s

4 failure to make the deletions and changes to con:ect the .listing of Plaintiff's action adventure
5 science fiction feature film "Warrior" on Defendant IMDB.COM, fNC.'s Internet Web Site

6 IMDB.com providing for the listing of the title of the movie as is without the attachment of a date
7 to the title in the heading of the listing unless the title of a movie is similar to titles of other movies
8 listed and then the date of the release of the movie to the public shall be listed alongside of the tille

9 of the movie in the head ing of tl1e listing. In the instant case, Plaintiff has not yet released his

10 rnovie "Warrior" to the publ ic and Defendant IMDB.COM, lNC. has wrongfully attached to the
11 Listing of the t itle "Wan·ior" in che heading of the listing of the movie the year 2002 in parenthese,~.

12 Such wrongful listing of (2002) alongside of the title " Warrior" misleads film distributors and

13 licensees and buyers of l.b.e movie to believe that the rights to sell the movie to the public have

J4 been licensed since the year 2002. Plaintiff brought this action to cause Defendant to change the

15 date of 2002 attached to the title "Warrior" co tJ1e date 2020 in anticipation of the release of the
16 movie to the public during the year 2020 if and when Defendant makes such date change and/or to
17 recover the damages Plaintiff is sufferi ng as a result of Defendant's failure and refusal to make
18 such date cban11e.
19 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
20 2. Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN is a graduate of the University of TI!inois in

21 Champaign-Urbana, Illinois and has a B.S. Degree io Political Science and is a graduate of the

22 University of California School of Law in Berkeley, California and has a J.D. Degree and is an

23 attorney licensed to practice law io lbeState of California and practices Jaw in the County of Los

24 Angeles, State of Califomia. As a result of having represented National Football League players,
25 Plaintiff BRUCE H. SlNGMAN became an owner of the Tride.nt Entertainment Video Production

26 Company in or about September of 1994 then based in the City of Burbank, State of California

27 and created, wrote and produced audio/video programs for home entertainment and television

28 btoadcast in which Nation.al Football League and National Basketball Associalion players and

OPPOSITJON OF PLANTlff BRUCE f-1. SJNGMAN TO DEFENDANT IMOB.COM, INC.'s MOTION TO

STRIKE TME COMP LArNT PU RSA NT TO CALLFORN1A 'S ANTI-STAPP STATUTE f CCP. SEC. 425.16\
 1 coaches and automobile racing champions demonstrate their skills and techniques and share thei r
2 life stories.
3 3. As a result of l1is production of such audio/video prognnns, Plaintiff BRUCE H..

4 SINGMAN produced an action adventure science fiction feature film entitled "Warrior" and
5 completed the production of the film in 2002. ln the course of completing production of

6 "\1/arrior", Plaintiff BRUCE A. SINGMAN sought and received loan funds from an individual,

7 who was desirous of distii buting feature films, for the production of tile last four days of the
8 thir!y-five days of production of "Warrior". Without Plainti ff BRUCE H . SINGMAN's

9 knowledge or authority, such lender delivered a file of the completed film "Warrior" to Tanya

10 York of York Entertainment of Los Angeles C01u1ry, who was acting under the guise of a film

11 distributor and Tanya York sto le the file of the film "Warrior" and changed the title of the feature

12 film "Wa1Tior" to Mexican Blow in a feeble attempt to conceal such theft as she posted a notice
13 that a video of Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN's feature film "Warrior" under the title of
14 Mexican Blow was for sale on Defendant AMAZON.COM. INC. 's Web Site lMDB.com.

15 4. Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN ljsted his feature film " Warrior" under the title

16 "Warrior" on the IMDB.com Web Site aod, without Plaintiil's knowledge or authority, Defendant

17 !MOB.COM, INC. added (2002) to the title of Warrior in the heading of the listing of Warrior on
18 Defendant IM DR.COM. INC.'s Web Site, apparently for the purpose of distin1-,,uishing: Plaintiff
19 BRUCE H. SINGMAN's movie "Warrior" from other feature films listed on Defendant
20 IMDB.COM, INC.' s Web Site with the name Warrior in the title of such other films.

21 5. As Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN discovered many years later, in accord with a

22 policy of Defendant IMDB.COM, INC.'s Web Site, the year listed a.longside of Lhe title of a

23 movie in the heading of the listing of movies on Defendant lMDB.COM, INC.'s Web Site is

24 considered by Defendant IMDB.COM, INC. to be the dale of the "release to the public" of a

25 movie listed on Defendant !MOB.COM, lNC.'s Web Site even though such movie may not yet
26 have been released to the public though could have been screened for the filrnmaker's fami ly and

27 friends, cast and crew and fellow members of the film industry as Plaintiff's movie "Warrior" was
28 screea.e<l for his family and friends, cast ru1d crew and fellow members of the film industry.

OPPOSITION Of PLANTlr!' BRUCE H. SINGMAN TO D EFENDANT £MOB.COM, JNC.'s MOTION TO

STRIKE THE COMl'r,AlNT PURSAl"\IT TO CALTFORNlA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATlYrE (CCP. SEC. 425 . 161
 6. Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN, in the midst of his continuing law practice and

2 efforts to sell the videos of the skill demonstration/life story programs of his All Pro Sports
3 Football Series (hUp://www.al lprosportsfootbaliscries.com) , All Pro Sports Basketball Series and

4 All Pro Sports Driving Series (hereinafter "All Pro Sports Series") and products imprinted with

5 the autographs and his artist's illustrations of the iconic National Foo1ball League and National

6 Basketball Association players and coaches and automobiJe racing champions featured i11 the
7 aforementioned All Pro Sports Football, Basketball and Driving Series (hereinafter "All Pro
8 Sports Designs"), sought a distributor for his feature film "Warrior" amongst the dozens of those

9 who profess to be skilled and experienced in the art of feature film distribution.
10 7. On or about September 20, 2018, Plaintiff BRUCo H. S[NGMAN entered into a
11 Film Distribution Agreement with the successfu l and experienced film distributor Acort

12 International, a subsidiary of Maxim Media Marketing, lnc. based in Tempe, Arizona, for rhe
13 distribution of his feature film "Warrior" and shippeti to Acort International tbe "deliverables"

14 required to be delivered by P laintiff to Acort International including a very expensive High

15 Definition fi le of "Warrior". Shortly after the execution of the aforementioned Agreement in

lG 20 l 8, Darrin Ramage, the President of Acort International d iscovered the year (2002) seL
17 a longside of the title of Plaintiff's feature film "Warrior" in the heading of the listing of"Warrior"
18 0 11 Defendant lMDB.COM. fNC.'s IMDB.com Web Site. which u,,der TMDB.cotn policy. a.~ set
19 forth herein-above, co1u1otes the date of the "release to the public" of a film lis ted on Defendant

20 IMDB.COM, lNC.'s IMDB.com Web Site, and transmitted correspondence through email to
21 Plaintiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN advising Plaintiff that he would not proceed with the distribution

'22 of Plaintiff's feature film "Warrior" unless and until the (2002) set forth alongside of the title of
23 "Warrior" in the heading of the listing of "Warrior" on the IMDB.com Web Site is deleted or

24 replaced by a year such as 2018 or 2019 along with other correlative deletions and changes to the

25 listing of Plainti.!Ts feature film "Warrior", which would confoim to the fact that "Warrior'' does
26 not have anything lo do with Mexican Blow and Lhat Plaintiff's feature film "Warr.ior" has not yet

27 been "released to the public". Darrin Ramage was concerned that prospet--tive licensees and
28 buyers of "Warrior" would back away because of the date (2002) and correlative information.
6
OPPOSITION OF PLAN'TTff l:IRUCE H. sn~GMAN TO Dl'l PENDANT TMDB.COM, lNC. 's MOTION TO
STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSANT TO CALrFORi"!IA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE /CCP. SEC. 425. 16)
 1 8. Plaintiff BRUCE H . SlNGMAN immediately commenced to send extensive and

2 comprehensive correspondence to the owners and Chief Executive Officers of Defendant

3 [MDB.CO!\,f, lNC. through email, regular and priority US Mail, facsimiles and Fed.Ex and the Edit

4 Page function of Defendant !MOB.COM, INC. 's !MOB.com Web Site providing the legal and
5 logical reasoning as to why the year 2002 alongside of the title "Warrior" in the heading of fue

6 listing on Dcfendanl CMDB.COM, rNC.'s IMDB.com' s Vleb Site should be deleted and replaced

7 at that time by the year 2019 as Plaintiff's feature fi lm "Warrior" has not yet been "released to the

8 public" along "',jth all of the other deletions and changes which are correlative to the change from

9 2002 to 2019 for the (to be 2020 or whenever movie theaters a(e open again) date of the release to

10 tbe public of Plaintiffs feature film "Warrior".

LI 9. After several weeks of failure and refusal of the owners and Chief Executive

12 Officers of Defendant IMDB.COM, INC. to respond lo Plaintiff's aforementioned

13 con-espondence, Plaintiff BRUCE H. SJNGMAN received by emai l correspondence from Noah

14 Eisner, House Counsel for Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC., correspondence which failed to
15 refute the legal and logical reasoning of Plaintiffs positio11 that his movie "Warrior" has never

16 been relea~ed to the public and that the year 2002 alongside of the title "Wamor" in the heading of
17 the listing on Defendant JMDB.COM, INC. 's IMDB.com Web Sjte shouJd be deleted and replaced
18 by the year 2019 (at that time) as Plaintiffs featl.lre film " W a.rrior" has nm yet been "released to

19 the public" along with all of the other deletions and changes wbich are correlative to the change

20 from 2002 to 2019 for the (at that time) date of the release to the public of Plaintiff's feature film

21 "Warrior", which should be made by Defendant's IMDB.COM, INC.'s Web Site rMDB.com.

22 Plaintiff BRUCE 1-J. SlNGMAN immediately responded to Mr. Eisner's email co1Tespondence by

23 sending correspondence by email and US Regulfil Mail to Mr. Eisner demonstrating why his email
24 correspondence fuiled to refute the legal and logical reasoning as Lo why the changes and deletions

25 Plaintiff was requesting should be made by Defendant IMDB.COM, INC. and advised Mr. Eisner

26 that Plaintiff would be co111rnencing legal action against Defendant !MOB.COM, INC. for the
27 damages Plaintiff is suffering as a result of the said Defendant's failure and refusal to make the
28
7
OPPOSlnON OF PT..ANTlff BRUCE H. S INGMAN TO DEFENDANT IMDB.COM, INC.'s MOTION TO
STRlKE THE COMPLACNT PURSANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE rccP. SEC. 425. [6'
 1 subject deletions and con-dati ve changes to the listing of Plaintiff's movie "Warrior" on
2 Defendant [MOB.COM, L\lC.'s IMDB.com Web Site.

3 A. Plaintiff's Action Ari.s cs from Defendants Disregard of the Facts

4 The anti-SLAPP s tatue protects S1alemen ts "made in a p lace open to the public or a
5 public fornm" as weU as "any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional

6 right of petition or ... free speech" if such statements and conduct are "in connection with a public

7 issue or an issue of public interest." CaJ. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 (e)(3)-(4).
8 California courts have consistently held that "public forums" in clude "websites and

9 online message boards and forums 'that are accessible free of charge to any member of the

10 publicf.l"' Pip ing Rock Partners, h1c. v. David Lerner Assocs., 946 F. Supp. 2d 957, 975 (N .D.

11 Cal. 2013). Further, courts have held that tl1e " public interest" should be construed broadly and
12 covers "any issue in whlcb the publ ic is interested." Maloney, 94 F. Supp. 3d a:t 1134 (quoting

13 Nygard, foe. v. Uusi-Kerti ula, 159 Cal. App. 4th I 027, I 042 (2008)).

14 The anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in any way in the instant case because PJ ajntiff

15 seeks to con-ect and remove wroogfi.tl and damaging content about his movie Warrior for the
16 protection of the public in a public forum and protect against the commission of a crime.
17 Defendant IMDB.COM, INC, cites Kroncmyer v. Inter.net Movie Database, Tnc., 150 Cal. App.
18 4th 94 1 (2007). as being comparable to Plaintift's case when it did not have any thing to do "'ith
19 the issues in Plaintiff's case and the Court's holding that Defendant IMDB.COM. INC.

20 "constitutes a public forum" and the action fell within Section 425.16(e)(3)-(4). ld. at 950 is not at

21 all applicable to the issues in Plaintiff's case, as Plaintiff has demonstrated without a doubt thm (he

22 information IMDB.COM, INC. has attached to Plaintiff's movie Warrior is completely wrong and

23 damaging and lhat it is not in any way in the public's best interest to maintain the wrongfu l and
24 damaging content.
25 As pointed out by counsel for the Defendant, the present suit aTises from "the content of
26 [IMDB's] Web site". The listing of information about a film on !MOB.com is not an act i.11

27 furtherance of the right of free speech protected under the anti-SLAPP statu.te." Kronemyer, 150
28 Cal. App. 4th at 94 7 if the information abolll a film does not have anything to do with the right of

OPPOSITJON OF PLANTrFF SRUCEH. SlNGMAN TOUEFENDANT IMDB.COM. INC.'s MOTION TO

STRIKE THE COMP I..AfNT PURSA NT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANT!-SLAPP STATUTE (CCV. si:;c. 425.16\
 1 free speech, but, rather incorporates false and misleading information which will destroy the work

2 of hundreds of people in the production of a movie and cause damages to many in the amount of

3 htu1dreds of millions of dol lars. Plaintiff's request: (i) for the deletion oftbe date (2002) attached

4 by IMDB.com to his movie Warrior, which connotes the date of the " release to the public" as a

5 matter of policy of IMDB.com and not law, is a vvrongful and malicious act when Plaintiff has

6 clearly demonstrated that his movie has not yet been released to the public; (i·i) for the deletion of

7 the wrongful name of a thief of a file of the movie as the Distributor of the movie Warrior when

8 the movie has not yet been distributed and a very well noted and highly regarded film distributor
9 has been engaged through an executed License Agreement for the worldwide distribution of

10 Plaintiff's movie Warrior; and (i ii) for the deletion of two other titles which have been wrongfully

U attached to the IMDB.com listi.1.1g of Warrior as Alternative Titles i.e. "aka" and which is not at al l

12 covered by "freedom of speech" by any stretch of the imagination or in any case ever heard of
13 relating to th is subject matter and the anti-SLAPP statute does not begin to apply ro Plaintiff's

14 meritorious aud righteous case against Defendant IMDB.COM, fNC. and which is deserving of

15 the award of damages i.1.1 no less than tl1e amount of Five Hundred Mill ion Dollars ($500,000,000)
16 as the amount which would be generated by distribution of tbc movie through all channels

17 throughout Lhe world according to those who specialize in the proj ection of such amoWlts for film
18 production investment purposes.
19 Counsel for Defendant do not seem to understand that the instant case does not have

20 anyth ing lo do with the anti-SLAPP starute and a public forum and seem to believe that free access

21 to IMDB.com makes it lawful for: IMDB.COM, INC. to harm others by causing them hundreds of
22 millions of dollars in damages through the surrounding of their movie listiJ1g by false and
23 defamatory information.

24 The paragraph written by Defense counsel in the ARG U'MENT Section of their Motion

25 demonstrates that counsel for the Defendant does not only fail to grasp that the anti-SLAPP statue
26 does not apply to tbe subject matter of the subject action bot that surprisiJlgly counsel does not

27 know much if anything about the film industry and filmmaking, as the title "Warrior" is one of a
28 hundred plus movie titles which have debuted over the years and tbat Plaintiff and his director

OPPOSITION OF PLANTll'I' BRUCBll. STNGMAN TO OBfe.NOANT IMOB.COM, INC.'s MOTION TO

STRIKE THE COMP LA INT PURSANT TO CALIFORN IA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE (CCP. SEC. 425.16)
 l chose the title Warrior because the title fits the protagonist of the movie perfectly and that movies

2 are listed on IMDB.com before they see the light of day and more importantly that Plaintiff
3 ananged a screening at the West Los Angeles Laemmlc Theater as a part of the New York
4 International Independent Film and Video Festival for only those who were a family and friends of
5 those who participated in the production, cast or crew and family and friends of the cast or crew

6 and members of the film industry (an lMDB.com policy of exception from " a release to the

7 public") as that screening of "Warrior" was not a release of the movie to the public and did not

8 warrant any date at1aehment to its title in the heading for the listing of the movie on IMDB.corn.
9 B. Plaintiff Can Show a Reasonable Probability of Prevailing
IO Plaintiff has shown through his Complaint a reasonable probability of prevailing on his

11 claim. Plaintiff has done this by establishing a probability of success on his claim by satisfying

12 the following: "must show that its claim is legally sufficient and supported by enough evidence to
13 establish a prima facie claim." See Monster Energy Co. v. 11mnder Beast LLC, 2018 vVL

14 6431010, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018) (BiTotte, J.); see also Maloney, 94 F. Supp. 3d at 1135

15 ("[T) he ' probability of prevailing' standard D operat[es] like an early stmunary judgment
16 motion."). A plaintiff cannot prevail Lf he "cannot establish an element of its cause of action or
17 [if) there is a complete defense to the cause of action." Maloney, 94 F. Supp. 3d at 1135.
18 I. Plainti.frs Complaint is not Time-Barred
19 Declaratory relief is a remedy and "equitable remedies will be awarded if an applicable

20 statute of limitations allows for the issuance of the legal remedy and in this instance Plaintiff has

21 complied with the applicable statue of I.imitations. Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d

22 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 5) , 57-58 (Isl Cir

23 1991 )). Accordingly, where the limitations period has not yet run on the underlying cause of
24 action, a request for declaratory relief must be granted. Maguire v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc., 23

25 Cal. 2d 719, 734, 146 P.2d 673, 68 1 (1944) (explaining that if "the cause of action . .. is not

26 baiTed by the statute [of limitations], lhe right to declaratory relief is likewise not barred").
27 a . As explained above, Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is granted because
28 he has pied valid underlying causes of action.

10
OPPOSITION Of PLAN'Tiff BRUCE H. SINGMAN TO DEFENDANT CMDB.COM, JNC.'s MOTION TO
STRIKc THE COMPLAINT PU RSA NT TO CALrFORN IA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CCCP. SEC. 425.16)
 I b. Tn fact, it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not know eighteen years ago that
2 IMDB.COM, INC.'s listing on [MOB.com of the wrongful information in the listing ofbis
3 IMDB.COM, TNC.'s listing on IMDB.com oftbe '-"Tongful information in the listing of his movie
4 "Warrior" was that which could be deleted and changed (or even that it had to be deleted or
5 changed) until be found out that he could request: tbe deletion of the wrong "release of the movie
6 Warrior to the public" date of2002 wherever it appeared in the listing and left blank because the

7 movie has not yet been released; the deletion of Tanya York of York Entertainment as the
8 distributor of "Warrior"; and the deletion of the alternate titles of Voodoocbilde and Mexican
9 Blow.
10 ill. CONCLUSION
11 Plaintiff has filed a factually correct and l.egally meritorious Complaint that properly seeks to
12 secure deletions and changes in the listing of his movie Warrior on IMDB.com in accord with the
J3 right to Edit the information in the listing of infonnation about bis movie as the Edit Team made
14 the afore-described deletions and changes to the listing of Warrior on or about January 3, 2020 i.n
15 response to Plaintiff's continual requests 011 a regular weekly basis since October of 2018.
16 Plaintiff discovered that Counsel in lb.is matter for IMDB.COM, TNC. Meza Kaba instructed
17 the staff or instructed someone else to instruct the staff at TMDB.com to reinstate the subject
18 deletions and changes. In accord with the for·cnoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
19 deny the Motion to Strike and the Demurrer filed by Defendant and award attorneys' foes ru1d
20 costs to Pla.intiffin the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) under Code of Civil
21 Procedure Section 425.16(c) mandatory provision for such award LO a p v

22 Dated: September 4, 2020. _By·~~~~~~~~~~

.SIN
23

24
25

26

27
28

OPPOS l'UON OF PLA1V rtFF BRUCE H. SINGMANTO DEFENDAN'f IMDB.COM, INC.'s MOTION ·ro
STRIKE THE COMPLAJNT PURSANT TO CAUFORN lA'S ANTl-SLAPP STATUTE !CCP. SEC. 425.16\
 1 PROOF OF SERVfCE
2 At the time of service, l was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, Stale of California. My business address is 4JJ 0
3 Rowland Avenue, El Monte, California 91731.
4 On September 4, 2020, I served true copies of the following docwnents described as:
5
OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF BRUCE H. SINGMAJ'-1 TO DEFENDANT IMDB.COM,
6 INC.'s NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRJ.KE Tl IE COMI>LA1NT
PURUSANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE (CCP SECTION 425.l 6)
7
on the interested parties or their attorney of record in this action as follows:
8
Moez NL Kaba, Esq.
9 Joseph A. Reiter, Esq.
Eunice Leong
10 Hueston Hennfo:an LLP
523 West 6'" Street, Suite 400
11 Los Angeles, California 90014
12
BY MAlL: I enclosed the documenl(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons
13 listed in the Service List and placed !he envelope for collection and mailing following my ordinary
business practice for the mailing of such documents. I am readily familiar with the Law Offices of
14 Bruce H. Singman's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
15 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, ia a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
17 foregoing is tme and correct.

18
19

20
21
22

23
24

25
26
27

28
12
OPPOSITION Or PLANTIFF BRUCE \i. SINGMAN TO DEFENDANT !MOB.COM INC.'s MOTION TO
STRIKE THE COMPLAINT PURSANTTO CALTFORNIA'S ANTJ-SLAPP STATUTE <CCI>. SEC. 425.16)