The lawsuit over Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee ended in a complete win for Jerry Seinfeld. Director Christian Charles sued Seinfeld and several co-defendants in 2018, claiming he was the true author of the show’s concept and pilot. A federal judge dismissed the case in 2019 as filed too late, the Second Circuit affirmed in 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear it, and Seinfeld was later awarded his attorney’s fees.
Who Sued and What They Claimed
Christian Charles is a director who had worked with Seinfeld since the 1990s, including on American Express commercials and the 2002 stand-up documentary Comedian. When Seinfeld began developing Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee in 2011, Charles directed the pilot in October of that year and helped pitch the show to Michael Davies of Embassy Row, a Sony-owned production company that placed it on the Crackle streaming platform.1Supreme Court of the United States. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Charles v. Seinfeld, No. 20-661
The relationship broke down in early 2012 over money and ownership. Seinfeld wanted to pay Charles on a work-for-hire basis. Charles wanted co-ownership and a piece of the show’s backend revenue. In February 2012, Seinfeld rejected the backend request. Charles ultimately accepted a payment of $107,734.41 for his work, and the show premiered on Crackle in July 2012 without any credit to him.2Variety. Jerry Seinfeld Wins Dismissal of Comedians in Cars Copyright Suit
Charles filed suit years later, first pro se in December 2017 and then through Duane Morris attorney Brian D. Siff, who filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in February 2018.3Duane Morris. Duane Morris Attorney Revs Comedians Cars Getting Coffee Lawsuit Against Seinfeld The case, Charles v. Seinfeld, No. 1:18-cv-01196, named Seinfeld, Netflix, Sony Pictures Television, Embassy Row, Michael Davies, and several Seinfeld-controlled entities as defendants. Charles brought copyright infringement, joint authorship, and state law claims, arguing he was the true author of the show’s concept and pilot.4Justia. Charles v. Seinfeld, No. 1:18-cv-01196
Why the Case Was Dismissed
U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the lawsuit on September 30, 2019. The Copyright Act carries a three-year statute of limitations, and because Charles’s infringement claim depended on proving he owned the copyright, the clock started running when he first learned that ownership was being disputed. Judge Nathan found Charles had been “on notice that his ownership claim had been repudiated since at least 2012,” pointing to Seinfeld’s rejection of the backend request and the show’s premiere without credit that same year.2Variety. Jerry Seinfeld Wins Dismissal of Comedians in Cars Copyright Suit
Charles did not file until 2018, more than five years later. That was too late. The copyright and joint authorship claims were dismissed with prejudice; the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.4Justia. Charles v. Seinfeld, No. 1:18-cv-01196 Seinfeld’s team had also argued that Charles released his claims when he accepted the 2012 payment, but the court resolved the case on timing grounds without reaching that argument.2Variety. Jerry Seinfeld Wins Dismissal of Comedians in Cars Copyright Suit
The Appeals
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in a summary order on May 7, 2020. Its reasoning tracked Judge Nathan’s. Because ownership was the central issue, the infringement claim could not survive if the underlying ownership claim was time-barred. The court quoted Charles’s own filings, which had framed the dispute as turning on “one simple question: who is the author of the Pilot.”5FindLaw. Charles v. CEO, Second Circuit The panel again identified February 2012 (the rejected backend request) and July 2012 (the premiere with no credit) as the events that put a reasonably diligent person on notice.6Courthouse News Service. Charles v. CEO, Summary Order, Case 19-3335
After the Second Circuit denied rehearing on June 10, 2020, Charles petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court through attorney Peter L. Skolnik. The petition argued that the Second Circuit’s approach conflicted with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Everly v. Everly on when copyright ownership claims accrue.7Willenken LLP. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Charles v. Seinfeld The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 14, 2020.8New York City Bar Association. Charles v. Seinfeld, Fees Decision
Attorney’s Fees Against Charles
On February 26, 2021, Judge Nathan ruled that Seinfeld was entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act. The court found Charles’s claim was not “objectively reasonable” and called the lawsuit “opportunistic,” noting that Charles had accepted substantial payment for the pilot and sued only years later, after the show’s value climbed sharply with the Netflix deal. Judge Nathan described Charles’s effort to recast his ownership dispute as an “authorship” claim as “nothing more than an attempt to substitute jargon for substance,” and said the award would deter meritless claims filed in hope of a large payout.8New York City Bar Association. Charles v. Seinfeld, Fees Decision The specific dollar amount was left for further briefing.9Wake Forest Law Review. Seinfeld Awarded Attorneys’ Fees After Fending Off Opportunistic Copyright Suit