Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darrin Dean McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-56146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Darrin Dean McCormick, Studio City, CA, pro se.
    Linda M. Burrow, Christopher G. Caldwell, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darrin Dean McCormick appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for Sony Pictures Entertainment (“Sony”) in his action alleging copyright infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because McCormick failed to establish a triable issue as to whether his work, Outzone (the Future is Here), was substantially similar to Sony’s film, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. See id. (“Absent evidence of direct copying, proof of infringement involves ... showing[ ] that ... the two works are substantially similar.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether Sony had access to McCormick’s work.

McCormick’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

McCormick’s pending motion for notice of lodging is granted.

McCormick’s pending requests for a status update are denied as moot.

McCormick’s pending motion for a correction of the docket is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the docket to reflect the proper date of judgment in the district court as July 20, 2009, with the date of entry of judgment being July 22, 2009.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.