T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A ZA N W I LD , a n i n d i v i d u a l , D BA C arn i v al C o m i cs, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. N B C U N IV E R S A L , a D el aw ar e c o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 56065 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 3 6 1 5 - G A FA JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a ryA . F e e s s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry4, 2013

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: C A L L A H A N , IK U T A , an d H U R W IT Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l a i nt i f f - A ppe l l a ntJ a z a n W i l d appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on d i s mi s s i n g h i s c o p y r i g h ti n f r i n g e me n ta n d r e l a t e d s t a t e l a w c l a i ms a g a i n s tN BC



# FI LED FEB 28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U ni ve r s a l , I nc . a nd T a i l w i nd P r oduc t i ons , I nc . ( “ N B C ” ) . P l a i nt i f f c ont e nds tha tthe fo u rth seaso n o f N B C ’ s t el ev i si o n seri es H er oes in f r in g e d h is th r e e - p a rt g r ap h ic n o v e l, Ja za n W

i ld ’s Ca rn i va l

o f So u l s (“ So u ls ”) . T he di stri ctcourtt oo k j ud i ci al no t i ce of the tw o w orks and d i sm i ss ed the com pl ai ntw i tho utl ea ve t o am end b as ed o n ala c ko f

s u b s ta n tia l s im ila r ityin th e irp r o te c tab le e le m e n ts . Wi ld v . NB C U ni ve rs al , Inc. , 788 F . S upp. 2d 1083, 1090 & n. 1, 1110- 11 ( C . D . C a l . 2011) . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o di s m i s s e d P l a i nt i f f’ s s t a t e l a w c l a i m s , f

i ndi ng the m pr e e m pt e d by th e C o p y r ig h t A c t. I

d. a t 1 1 1 0 - 1 1 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f

f i rm. I. T o p r e v a il o n h is c o p y r ig h t in f r in g e m e n t c la im , P la in tif f m u s t s h o w b o th a c c e s s a n d s u b s ta n tia l s im ila r ity . Funk yFi lm s , I

nc . v . T i m e W arne rE ntm ’ t

C o. , 46 2 F . 3d 10 72 , 10 76 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). T o est abl i sh subst ant i al si m i l ar i ty, a pl ai nt i ff m u s t s a tis f

yb o th a n e x tr in s ic te s t, f o c u s in g o n o b

je c tiv e e le m e n ts , a n d a n in tr in s ic te s t, f o c u s in g a n o r d in a ryp e r s o n ’s s u b je c tiv e im p r e s s io n s . I

d. a t1077. U nde rthe extri nsi c t es t , w e e val uat e dra m at i c and l i t er ary w orks for “ ‘ art i cul abl e s i m i l ar i t i es betw ee n the pl ot , them es , di al og ue, m oo d, se tt i ng , pace , char ac t er s, and sequence o f e v e n ts ’ in th e tw o w o rk s .” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he di s tr i c tc ourta na l y z e d the tw o w o rk s in d e ta il a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ o ]th e rth a n th e p r e s e n c e o f g e n e r icA l tho ug h P l ai nt i ff cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave gi ven h i m an 1 op po rtun i ty t o sub m i texpertt es t i m on y i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m s, he has never art i cul at ed ho w an expertcoul d ass i stthe court ’ s anal ys i s i n the part i cul ar ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. A l tho ug h exp ertt es t i m on y i s oft en neces saryw hen e v a lu a tin g s u b s ta n tia l s im ila r ity , s e e, e .g ., T hree B oys Mus i c C or

p. v . B ol ton , 212 F . 3d 477, 485 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , the r e i s no c a t e gor i c a l rul e pr ohi bi t i ng c ourt s f r om c o n d u c tin g s u c h a n e v a lu a tio n w ith o u t it, se e Chr is t i ans on v . W . P ub. C o. , 149 F . 2d 20 2, 20 4 (9th C i r. 19 45 ). 3 c a rni va l e l e m e nt s a nd s t a nda r d s c e ne s tha tl ogi c a l l yf l ow f r om thos e e l e m e nt s , the tw o w orks di f

f e rr a di c a l l yi n the i rpl ota nd s t ory l i ne s , the i rc ha r a c t e r s , the d ia lo g u e , th e s e ttin g a n d th e m e s , a n d th e m o o d .” W ild , 7 8 8 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 0 9 0 . W e have i nd ependent l y r evi ew ed the w orks and agree. 1 P l a i nt i f f a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe tw o w orks a r e vi s ua l l ys i m i l a r , j uxt apos i ng a n u mb e ro f

s c r e e n s h o t s f

r o m H er oes w i th i n d i v i d u a l f

r a me s f r o m So u ls , i nc l udi ng d ep i ct i o n s o f a ch aract er ap p ro ach i n g a carn i v al , ch aract ers i n th e h o u se o f m i rro rs, a n d av ie w th r o u g h ag u n s ig h t. T h e s e im a g e s , h o w e v e r , a r e s im p lyu n p r o te c tab le “s to c ks c e n e s ” o r“s c e n e s af a ir e ” ( s itu a tio n s th a t n a tu r a llyf lo w f r o m ab a s ic p r e m is e ) . See Caval i erv. R an do m H ou se, Inc. , 2 9 7 F .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A ny re m ai ni ng com parabl e a spec t s of these sc enes const i tut e nothi ng m ore than “r a n d o m s im ila r itie s s c a tte r e d th r o u g h o u t th e w o rk s ” th a t a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt ac la im o f

s u b s ta n tia l s im ila r ity . L i tch f i eld v. S p i elb erg , 736 F . 2d 1352, 13 56 (9th C i r. 19 84 ). C on se qu ent l y, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y f ou nd that– evenP la in tif f in itia llys u g g e s te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r lyd is m is s e d h is 2 s ta te la w c la im s , b u t th e n f a ile d to s u p p o rt h is a r g u m e n t w ith a n ya n a ly s is in h is op eni ng bri ef

. S um m ary a ss ert i on s of thi s nature are no tsuff i ci entt o p re se rve a c la im f o rr e v ie w . Su l l i van v. D ol lar T re e Stores , Inc. , 6 2 3 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 6 n .3 ( 9 th C i r . 2010) ( c i t i ng Gr e e n wo o d v . FA A , 2 8 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ) .

4 a s s um i ng tha tN B C ha d a c c e s s t o P l a i nt i f f’ s w ork – P l a i nt i f

f c a nnots a t i s f

ythe e x tr in s ic te s t, a n d c o n s e q u e n tly , h is c o p y r ig h t c la im m u s t f a il. II . P l a i nt i f f f urthe rc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by di sm i ss i ng hi s c l ai m s w i tho utl ea ve t o am end. B ef ore the di stri ctcourt , P l ai nt i ff

“ di d notpr opos e a nyne w f a c t s orl e ga l the or i e s f

ora n a m e nde d c om pl a i nta nd there fore gave the [di stri ctcourt ] no basi s t o al l ow an am endm ent . ” G ardn erv. M ar t i no , 563 F . 3d 981, 991 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . O n appe a l , P l a i nt i f f ar gue s tha the m aybe abl e t o al l ege anu m ber of a dd i t i on al fa ct s a l l concerni ng N B C ’ s a l l eged a c c e s s t o So u ls . T he di s tr i c tc ourt , how e ve r , a s s um e d tha tN B C ha d a c c e s s t o the w o rk . W ild , 7 8 8 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 1 0 . C o n s e q u e n tly , a n ys u c h a m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e n o im p a c t o n o u ra n a ly s is . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng P l a i nt i f f’ s c l a i m s w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd. 2 AF F I RME D.