Clayton Prince Tanksley v. Lee Daniels, et al.

The question presented is whether the trial court should engage in a substantive analysis and determination regarding substantial similarity as a matter of law at the pleading stage of the proceedings, without discovery, cross examination of witnesses, and expert testimony, where, as in the case sub judice, the Petitioner has stated a valid prima facie cause of action, has an admittedly valid copyright, has demonstrated (with uncontested) access and probative similarity, and has alleged facts that satisfy the lay-observer test?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the District Court’s grant of Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss, even though Petitioner had stated a valid prima facie cause of action for direct copyright infringement, thereby depriving Petitioner of his right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the 7th Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Whether Petitioner should have been permitted to amend his Second Amended Complaint?