A California appeals court unanimously upheld that The Pitt shares clear similarities with ER, allowing Crichton's estate to pursue its unauthorized reboot claim against Warner Bros.
By Adam Makins·
A California appeals court dealt a significant blow to Warner Bros. Television on Wednesday, ruling that the Emmy-winning medical drama The Pitt shares “clear and numerous” similarities with Michael Crichton’s iconic 1990s series ER. The decision hands Crichton’s estate a major victory in their legal battle over what they claim is an unauthorized reboot disguised as an original show.
In a comprehensive 33-page opinion, a three-judge panel from the Second District Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a lower court’s earlier ruling. The justices determined that Crichton’s estate presented sufficient evidence to pursue their claim that The Pitt represents an unauthorized reboot of ER. Warner Bros. had aggressively pushed back, arguing on appeal that the shows shared only “generic similarities” common to any dramatic story involving emergency room doctors. That argument didn’t stick.
The appeals court justices meticulously compared the pilot scripts for both shows and found striking parallels in plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings, pacing, characters, and sequence of events. Their ruling gets remarkably specific about what makes these shows structurally similar.
“Both shows take place, with little exception, in the emergency room, as opposed to other medical shows which track patients as they move out of the emergency room, or indeed never enter it,” the justices wrote in their opinion. “The pacing of events is also common: very fast pacing, and reactions to multiple overlapping crises.”
The court also noted that both programs feature “fast-paced dialogue that is frequently incomprehensible shorthand and jargon, lending an air of immediacy and accuracy to the presentation.” Each show presents a series of patients in overlapping sequences, with medical personnel constantly interrupting their work to attend to mounting crises. They also share graphic depictions of injuries and both include a young, recently graduated doctor who is initially incompetent.
These aren’t coincidences the court is willing to overlook.
The underlying lawsuit was filed in August 2024 by Sherri Crichton, Michael Crichton’s widow, against Warner Bros., producer John Wells, and actor-producer Noah Wyle. The estate’s core allegation is damaging: when Crichton originally sold Warner Bros. the screenplay for the ER pilot, the studio promised that no subsequent productions derived from ER would move forward without Crichton’s explicit consent.
According to the complaint, Warner Bros. negotiated unsuccessfully with Crichton’s estate for nearly a year seeking rights to reboot ER. When those negotiations failed, the studio allegedly “simply moved the show from Chicago to Pittsburgh, rebranded it The Pitt, and has plowed ahead without any attribution or compensation for Crichton and his heirs.”
Wyle, who famously starred in ER alongside George Clooney and Anthony Edwards, plays the lead character in The Pitt. He’s since denied the new show is derivative of Crichton’s original. “I do not see how The Pitt could be deemed derivative of ER because they are two entirely different shows,” Wyle claimed in a sworn statement.
To support his defense, Wyle pointed to character differences. He noted that Dr. Carter from ER was a wealthy, blue-blood doctor with a privileged background, while his character Dr. Robinavitch comes from a blue-collar Jewish background and did his residency in New Orleans while managing PTSD.
The appeals court wasn’t swayed by these distinctions when it came to the broader similarities. The justices dismissed separate claims against Wyle, Wells, and entertainment producer-showrunner R. Scott Gemmill, saying there was insufficient evidence to show they were aware of potential violations of Crichton’s contractual rights. However, the case against Warner Bros. itself will proceed.
Warner Bros. had attempted to dismiss the case entirely on anti-SLAPP grounds, arguing it was frivolous and violated their free speech rights. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang rejected that challenge, determining the estate’s complaint met the “minimal merit standard” to proceed. Now the appeals court has reinforced that decision.
Sherri Crichton responded to the ruling with optimism: “I am deeply gratified by the Court of Appeal decision and look forward to discovery and to our case, which affects writers, creators, and their families and estates, being presented to a jury.”
The next hearing is scheduled for January 21 back in Judge Chang’s courtroom in downtown Los Angeles. This case could reshape how studios handle franchise reboots and the protections writers negotiate into their original deals.
Source: Rolling Stone
