The complaint
New Regency Productions, Inc. v. Mann, No. 2:26-cv-13316 (C.D. Cal., Western Division), is a 20-page complaint for declaratory relief filed November 13, 2026, ECF No. 1. The complaint describes New Regency Productions, Inc. ("Regency") as a California corporation based in Los Angeles, California, and a film and television studio. It alleges, on information and belief, that Michael Mann is an individual domiciled in Los Angeles, California, and describes him as a screenwriter and director who wrote and directed the first Heat film. It brings the action under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., pleads subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The screenplay and the rights Regency claims
The complaint concerns the screenplay for the 1995 film Heat. It alleges that Mann wrote that screenplay as a work made for hire within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 101, as an employee of a loan-out company he formed in 1976 and/or of other companies, and that Mann stated that fact repeatedly in written agreements he signed, both on his own behalf and for companies he controlled. It says that, in the case of a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author under 17 U.S.C. § 201(b), and that a work made for hire is not subject to termination under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a). According to the complaint, Regency acquired rights to the Heat screenplay in 1994, produced the film, which premiered on December 15, 1995, and still holds those rights, including film, television, and other rights in the Heat film. It describes a chain of earlier written agreements with television and film studios, which it says describe the screenplay and its predecessor works as works made for hire, and a March 22, 1989 written assignment from Mann and the loan-out company to another company the complaint says Mann controlled, covering predecessor material the complaint identifies as a teleplay titled Hanna and material from a project titled Criminal Anthology (the 1989 assignment).
The three termination notices
The complaint alleges that Mann served Regency with three notices of termination under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a). The first, served April 29, 2026, purports to terminate an alleged October 1988 assignment of rights from Mann to two companies the complaint says he controlled, the loan-out company and a second company, for the work "Heat a/k/a The Other Side a/k/a LA Takedown a/k/a Hanna." The complaint says that when Regency asked to see the assignment, Mann stated through a representative that it was an oral communication, never reduced to writing, allegedly made on or about October 1, 1988. The second notice, served May 21, 2026, also refers to that alleged oral assignment, this time as a transfer only between Mann and the second company, and identifies the works as "certain screenplays written between February 1, 1981 and April 7, 1985, including Heat (a/k/a Crime Story a/k/a The Other Side a/k/a Hanna)." The third notice, served May 28, 2026, purports to terminate the 1989 assignment.
Regency maintains, according to the complaint, that the notices are invalid, ineffective, and/or do not affect its rights, including because (a) it says the Heat screenplay and its predecessor works were created as works made for hire and therefore are not eligible for termination under section 203; (b) the first and second notices purport to terminate an oral grant, which was not "executed by the author" in writing and therefore is not subject to termination under section 203(a); (c) it says an oral grant could not convey exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a), and that Regency's exclusive rights do not derive from any such oral assignment; (d) the first notice misidentifies the parties to the alleged oral assignment; (e) the second notice fails to clearly identify the works to which it applies, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 201.10; (f) the third notice purports to terminate the 1989 assignment, whose conveyances the complaint says were either made by the loan-out company, which as an employer has no right of termination under section 203(a), or concern works made for hire, and which it says the notice falsely describes as not including a right of publication; (g) the first and second notices purport to terminate the subject grant before the earliest date allowed by statute (the complaint says those notices state effective dates of April 30, 2028 and May 22, 2028); and (h) the complaint says the notices falsely state that the respective grants did not include a right of publication. The complaint says that, if given effect, the notices would strip Regency, beginning in 2028, of rights it has held for more than three decades, and that certain provisions of agreements that Mann and Regency each entered into with another company concerning Heat 2, a film sequel based on Mann's 2022 novel of that name, depend on the outcome of the litigation.
Count and relief
The complaint pleads one cause of action, for declaratory relief. It alleges that an actual controversy exists over whether the termination notices are valid and whether they affect Regency's rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), it seeks a judicial declaration that the termination notices are null and void, that the Heat screenplay is not eligible for copyright termination under 17 U.S.C. § 203, and that Regency retains all rights to the screenplay according to the transfers, licenses, and/or assignments it received and to the fullest extent allowed by law. The prayer also asks that judgment be entered in Regency's favor, that it be awarded any reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, or other expenses recoverable under law, and other and further relief.