Patrice Edwards v. Cinelou Films

Aug 17, 2017
16-56043
Versions:696 F. App'x 270

We reject as without merit the Gehrons’ contention that the district court misapplied California law.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

Patrice Edwards, Pro Se

David Aronoff, Attorney, Fox Rothschild LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

MEMORANDUM **

Patrice Edwards appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment dismissing her copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court‘s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Edwards‘s copyright infringement action because, as a matter of law, Edwards‘s works titled “Witch” and defendants’ film The Last Witch Hunter are not substantially similar under the extrinsic test. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm‘t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the extrinsic test to assess substantial similarity between specific expressive elements of copyrighted works, such as plot, sequence of events, themes, mood, setting, pace, and characters); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm‘t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076-78 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial similarity may be decided as a matter of law by applying the extrinsic test).

We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Edwards‘s request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.