US appeals court lets Crichton widow's suit over The Pitt proceed to jury trial

The ruling

A unanimous three-judge panel of a US appeals court has denied an appeal by Warner Bros Television (WBTV), allowing a lawsuit over The Pitt to move forward. The ruling, reported on 5 November, found the Emmy-winning medical drama similar enough to ER that Sherri Crichton, widow of ER creator Michael Crichton, can pursue her claim. The court pointed to a shared emergency-room setting, a fast pace, medical jargon, graphic injuries and an inexperienced young doctor fresh from medical school. It wrote:

“There are clear and numerous similarities between The Pitt and ER”

WBTV had argued that the overlaps were generic features of any story set in an emergency room and that the two shows are unrelated. The panel was not persuaded, and the case now heads toward a trial in Los Angeles.

The 1994 contract and the reboot talks

Michael Crichton and Warner Bros Television signed the ER contract in 1994, and it contained a "frozen rights" clause. That provision barred spin-offs, sequels and reboots without Crichton's written approval, and after his death in 2008 his heirs were also required to consent. Around 2023, Noah Wyle, John Wells and R. Scott Gemmill wanted to reunite on a follow-up, initially an official ER reboot centred on Dr John Carter. Warner Bros then opened talks with Sherri Crichton, which broke down in 2023 according to the account of the complaint reported by Variety. In that account, Wells had been trying to revive the series for Max since 2020 and phoned Crichton in 2022 with a courtesy notice. The complaint argues The Pitt emerged after the reboot negotiations failed, and the plaintiff says the studio went ahead with a project that was ER in everything but name.

Defendants dismissed and earlier rulings

The appeals court dismissed Wyle, Wells and Gemmill as defendants, finding no evidence that any of them knew their work could breach Crichton's contractual rights. WBTV remains a defendant and must go to trial. The case has a procedural history: in February 2025, Judge Wendy Chang rejected a defence request to throw the case out under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects free speech against meritless lawsuits. She found evidence of a case with at least a prima facie basis, and Warner Bros appealed her decision. In the ruling, the court stated:

“We find the details here suffice for a prima facie case.”

Wyle, Wells and Gemmill had been named alongside WBTV, and the ruling removes them from the proceedings.

What comes next

The case goes to a jury trial in Los Angeles unless the parties reach a settlement, and the Guardian reports the trial is expected in 2027. Sherri Crichton accused Wells of personal betrayal in her filing, according to the Guardian. The appeals court's decision does not decide the merits, only that the claim can proceed to trial. WBTV is the defendant that must now face that trial.