N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESPLANADE PR ODUC TIONS, INC ., a C a l ifornia c orporat ion, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. THE WALT DISNEY C O M PANY, a De la ware c o rporation; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-56775 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-02185-M W F-JC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 8, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd AR TER TON, * * Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff Espla

na de Produc tions, Inc . tim e ly a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of this a c t ion a lle g i ng c o py right viola

tions by De fe n da nts The W a lt Disne y C om pa ny an d re l a te d e ntitie s c onc e rning thepopula r m ovie , Zootopia
. 

# F IL ED
APR 24 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he Honora

b le Ja ne t B ond Arte rton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C onne c tic ut, sitting by de signa tion.R e vie wing de novo, De pot, Inc . v. C aring for M onta na ns, Inc ., 915 F.3d 643, 652 (9th C ir. 2019), we a ffirm
. To e s ta blish c opy

right infringe m e nt, Pla intiff m ust prove , am o ng othe r things, unla

wful a p propria tion of prote c te d e xpre ssion. R e n tm e e ste r v. Nike , Inc ., 883 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th C ir. 2018), c e rt. de nie d, 2019 W L 1318584 (U.S. M ar. 25, 2019) (No. 18-728). To a sse ss unla wful a p propria tion, we c onside r substa

ntia l sim ila rity unde r the e xtrinsic te st. Id. a t 1118. The e xtrinsic te st a sse sse s the obje c t ive sim ila ritie s of the two works, foc using only

on the prote c ta

ble e le m e nts of thepla intiff’ s e xpre ssion. B e fore that c om

p a rison c an be m a d e , the c ourt m ust " filte r out" the unprote c ta

ble e le m e nts of thepla intiff’ s work— prim arily ide a s a nd c onc e pts, m a te ria l in the public dom a i n, a nd sc è ne s à faire (stoc k or sta nda rd fe a ture s tha

t are c om m only a ssoc iate d with thetre atm e nt of a give n subje c t). The prote c ta ble e le m e n ts tha

t re m a in a re the n c om pa re d to c orre sponding e le m e nts of thede fe n da nt’ s work to a sse ss sim ila ritie s in the obje c tive de ta ils of theworks. Id. (c i tations omitte d ). Nota bly , " [o] rigina l se le c tion, c oordina tion, a nd
arrange m e nt of unprote c tible e le m e nts m ay be prote c tible e xpre ssion." L.A. Printe x Indus., Inc . v. Ae roposta le , Inc ., 676 F.3d 841, 849 (9th C i r. 2012). In de te rm i ning substa

ntia l sim ila

rity , we m

ust a sk whe t

he r Pla intiff ha s shown tha

t De fe nda nts " a ppropria te d a substa

ntia l portion of the

pla i ntiff’ s work." Id. at 852 (e m

pha sis a dde d). " It is e nough tha t substa ntia l pa rts we re lifte d; no pla g ia rist c an e xc use the wrong by showing how m

uc h of his work hedid not
2pirate
. " Id. (bra c k e ts om itte d) (quoting She ldon v. M e tro-Goldwy n Pic t ure s C orp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d C i r. 1936) (Ha nd, J.)). Apply ing the e xtrinsic te st he re , the two works a re not substa

ntia lly sim ila r. C onside ring a ll the prote c ta ble e le m e nts, for e xam

ple , " plot, the m e s, dia logue , m ood, se tting, pa c e , c ha

ra c t e rs, a nd se que nc e of e ve n ts," Funky Film s, Inc . v. Tim e W arne r Entm ’ t

C o ., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d), plus these le c tion, c om bina tion, a nd a rrange m e n t of unprote c ta ble
e le m e nts, the re is little sim ila rity be twe e n the works. The title s a re ide ntic a l, but a title is unprote c te d

a s a m a tte r of fe de ra l la

w. 37 C .F.R . § 202.1(a); Sha wv. Lindhe im , 919 F.2d 1353, 1362 (9th C i r. 1990). And the single c om

m on line of dia l ogue a

bout be c om ing a

n e le pha nt is insuffic ie ntly signific ant to c o nstitute prote c te d e xpre ssion. Olson v. Na t’ l B roa d. C o., 855 F.2d 1446, 1450 (9th C ir. 1988). Othe r tha

n those attribute s, the works sha re sim ila ritie s only a t a

ve ry high le ve l of ge ne ra lity or in wa y s c om m o n to m any

works. De fe nda

n ts m a y have
c opie d the ide a

of a z oo utopia , but the ir e xpre ssion of tha t ide a be a rs a l m ost no
re se m bla nc e to Pla intiff’ s e xpre ssion. Pla intiff the re fore ha s not shown unla wful
a ppropria tion. No disc o v e ry

or e xp e rt te stim ony

c ould show how the

works a re sim ila r, so the c la i m is not pla usible , a nd dismissa l of the m ovie c opy right c l a im

wa s
3a

ppropria te . Se e R e ntm e e ste r, 883 F.3d a t 1123 (a ffirm ing dismi ssa l on the ple a dings whe re the two works a re be fore the c ourt " and thus c a pa ble of
e xam ination a

nd c om pa rison" and whe re disc ove ry would not " she d light on a ny issue s tha t a c tua lly m a tte r to the outc om e " (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d)). For the sa m e re a son— l a c k of substa n tia l sim ila

rity unde r the e xtrinsic te st— the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly dism isse d the " m e rc ha

n dise an d m arke ting"
c opy right c la im
. AFFIRM E D.

4