Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0270-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrice EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINELOU FILMS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56043
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Patrice Edwards, Pro Se
    David Aronoff, Attorney, Fox Rothschild LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         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.
    
   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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.