N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

PAM ELLA LAW RENC E, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SONY PIC TURES ENTER TAINM ENT, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; C OLUM B IA PIC TURES INDUSTR IES, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; TR

ISTAR PIC T UR ES, INC ., a

De la ware c orporation; SIDNEY KIM M EL ENTER TAINM ENT, LLC , a C a lifornia

lim ite d lia bility c om pa ny ; SKE C R EATIVE, LLC , a C a l ifornia lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny ; TAR GET M EDIA ENTER TAINM ENT, GM B H; JIM TAUB E R , a n individua l; SIDNEY KIM M EL, a

n individual; AM Y B AER , a n individual; B R

UC E TOLLER , an individual; GAR

ETH W IGAM , a

n individua l; W ILLIAM HOR B ER G, a n individua l; DIANA PHILLIPS, a n individua l; W ONDER

FUL FILM S C ORP., a C a l ifornia

c orporation; LAW R ENC E M ALKIN, a n individual; DEAN C R

AIG, a n individual; GLENN S. GAINOR , a

n individua l; PHILIP ELW AY, a

n individual; ANDR

EAS No. 11-56463

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-04737-SVW -E M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

JUL 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.GR OSC H, a n individual; SHAR

E STALLINGS, a

n individual; B R

UC E TOLL, a n indivdua l ; FR

ANK OZ, a

n individua l; C HR IS R OC K; C HR IS R OC K ENTER PR ISES, INC ., a De l a

ware c orporation; B EHAVE PR ODUC TIONS, INC ., a C a lifornia

c orporation; NEIL LAB UTE, a

n individual ; AYESHA C ARR , a n individual ; SC R EEN GEM S, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; SC REEN GEM S DISTR IB UTION, INC ., a De la ware c o rpora tion; PAR

AB OLIC PIC T UR ES, INC ., a

C a lifornia c orporation; STAB LE WAY ENTER TAINM ENT, INC ., a C a lifornia c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. 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 Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July

8, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ENAVIDES, *** B Y B EE, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pa m e lla Lawre nc e a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Fortuna

to P. B e nav ide s, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Fifth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion. 2for De fe nda

nts a nd the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of De fe n d ants’ m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. La wre nc e argue s tha

t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in gra

n ting sum m ary judgm e nt for De fe nda

nts on he r c opy

right infringe m e nt c la im s. 1 W ith re ga rd to La wre nc e ’ s
c la im tha t the De ath at a Fune ral film s infringe d he r c opy right to “ C a

ught on Vide o” (“ the Vide o” ), La wre nc e ha s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m at e ria l fa c t that she owne d a

va lid c o py

right to the

Vide o. Se e C

DN Inc . v . K ape s , 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th C ir. 1999). The c opy right to the

Vide o initia lly

ve s te d in Orla

ndo Ushe r, the a

uthor of the Vide o , 17 U.S.C . § 201(a ); s e e also S.O.S., Inc . v . Pay day , Inc

. , 886 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th C ir. 1989), a n d wa s not va lidly

tra nsfe rre d to Lawre nc e be c a

use any tra n sfe r of rights wa s not donein writing, 17 U.S.C
. § 204(a ); se e also K

onigsbe rg Int’l Inc . v . Ric e , 16 F.3d 355, 357–58 (9th C ir. 1994). Although La

wre nc e ha s sinc e obta ine d a c opy right re gistra

tion for the

1 W e de e m Lawre nc e ’ s supple m e nta l brie f, whic h wa s file d Ja nua ry 29, 2013, file d. La wre nc e argue s in he r re ply brie f and supple m e nta l brie f that De fe nda nts e nga ge d in fra

ud upon thedistric t c ourt by substituting a

n attorne y , whic h

de la y e d tria l . She a lso a

rgue s in he r supple m e nta l brie f that we should im p ose sa n c t ions on De fe nda nts be c a use the y file d a n a lle ge dly

fra udule nt m otion opposing La wre nc e ’ s notic e for ne w a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l be fore this c ourt. Sinc e La wre nc e ’ s argum e nts a

re la rge ly unsupporte d by

c ita tion to la w or fa c t, we de c line to c onside r the m . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a )(9)(A); W . Radio Se rv

s. C o. v . Qw e st C orp. , 678 F.3d 970, 979 (9th C ir. 2012). 3Vide o, it wa s not “ m a de be fore or within five y e ars a fte r first public a tion of the work.” 17 U.S.C . § 410; se e Lamps Plus, Inc . v . Se attle Lighting Fix ture

C o. , 345 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th C ir. 2003). W ith re ga rd to La w re nc e ’ s c la im

tha t the D e ath at a Fune ral film s infringe d he r c opy right to he r book, C

aught on Vide o . . . the Most Embarrassing Mome nt de Fune ral J uly 11, 1994 (“ the B ook” ), La wre nc e ha s fa ile d

to ra ise a ge n uine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the re wa s a re a sona ble possibility

tha t De fe nda nts ha d a c c e ss to theB ook. Se e Thre e Boy s Music C orp. v . Bolton , 212 F.3d 477, 482 (9th C ir. 2000). La

wre nc e ’ s c la im s tha

t De fe nda n ts ha d a c c e ss to theB ook a re spe c ulative , s e e id. , a

nd De fe n d ants pre s e nte d unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e showing that the y did not ha

ve a c c e ss to theB ook or the Vide o while c re a ting the De ath at a Fune ral film s. In any e ve nt, La w re nc e ha s a lso fa ile d

to ra i se a ge nuine issue a s to whe the r the D e ath at a Fune ral film s a re substa ntia lly sim ila r to e ithe r the Vide o or the B ook. Smith v . J

ac k son , 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th C ir. 1996). Unde r the e x trinsic te st for de te rm ining substa ntia l sim ila

rity , a ll of the sim ila

r e le m e nts tha

t La wre nc e ha s a lle ge d a

re unprote c ta

b le be c a use the y are historic a l fa c ts, sc e ne s -a -fa ire , or ide a s. Se e Be nay

v . W arne r Bros. Entm’t, Inc
. , 607 F.3d 620, 624–25 (9th C ir. 2010); s e e also Fe ist Publ’ns, Inc . v . Rural Te l. Se rv . C o., Inc

. , 499 U.S. 340, 4348–49 (1991). Even if the a lle ge dly sim ila r e le m e nts we re prote c t a

ble , the re are fe w, if a ny , “ artic ula

b le sim ila ritie s be twe e n the plot, the m e s, dia logue , m o od,
se tting, pa c e , c ha

ra c te rs, a nd se que nc e of e ve nts” in the B ook a n d the Vide o, a

nd the D e ath at a Fune ral m ovie s. W alt Disne y Pic ture s & Te le v ision , 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th C ir. 1994) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Although a pe rson is
nake d at a

fune ra l in the De a th at a Fune ral film s and in the B ook a nd the Vide o , this is unre m arka

ble sinc e the re a s on why

the pe rson wa s na

ke d diffe re d substa ntia lly . Thus, thedistric t

c ourt did not err in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt for De fe nda nts on La wre nc e ’ s c opy

right c la im s. 2 No re a sona

ble jury c ould find tha

t the w orks a

re substa ntia lly sim ila r. C av a lie r v . Random House , Inc

. , 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th C i r. 2002). In a ddition, La

wre nc e c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of attorne y s’ fe e s to De fe nda

nts. Sinc e La

wre nc e ha s fa ile d

to show tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s fe e award
wa s ba se d

on a n ina c c ura te vie w of the la w or a c le arly e rrone ous finding of fa c t,
we hold tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in m a king the fe e award. Se e Fantasy

, Inc . v . Foge rty , 94 F.3d 553, 556 (9th C ir. 1996). The distric t c ourt

2 Sinc e La

wre nc e ha s fa ile d to ra ise a m a te ria l issue of fa c t with re g ard to dire c t c opy

right infringe m e n t of e ithe r the Vide o or the B ook, she ne c e ssa rily fa i ls to e s ta b lish c o ntributory

or vic arious c opy

right infringe m e nt. Se eA& M Re c ords, Inc

. v . N apste r, Inc

. , 239 F.3d 1004, 1019–22 (9th C ir. 2001). 5artic ulate d a re a sone d e xpla

na tion for a

warding fe e s, Range

Rd. Music

, Inc . v . E. C oast Foods, Inc

. , 668 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th C ir. 2012), ba se d on the fa c tors se t forth in Fantasy

, Inc . v . Foge r ty , 94 F.3d a t 557–58, whic h it found we ighe d
a ga inst La

wre n c e . W ith re ga

rd to the am ount of the fe e award, the distric t c ourt
a pplie d the lode sta

r m e thod a

nd c onc lude d tha

t both thenum

be r of hours a

nd the hourly ra te s tha t De fe nda nts submitte d to the c ourt we re re a sona ble ba se d on the fa c t ors se t forth in Fisc he l v . Equitable LifeAssur. Soc ’yof U.S. , 307 F.3d 997, 1006–07 & n.7 (9th C ir. 2002). The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly re lie d, in pa

rt, on its own knowle dge and e xpe rie n c e to de te rm i ne tha t the fe e s we re c onsiste nt with the p re va iling m arke t wa ge . Se eIngram v . Oroudjian , 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th C ir. 2011). In sum , the distric t c o urt “ artic ulate [d] with suffic ie nt c la rity the m a nne r in whic h it m a [de ] its de te rm ination of a re a sona ble hourly

ra te and the num

be r of hours whic h should re a sona b ly be c o m p e nsate d.” C

h alme rs v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 796 F.2d 1205, 1211 (9th C ir. 1986), ame nde d by , 808 F.2d 1373 (9th C ir. 1987). AFFIR M ED.

6