NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOCELYN SUSAN BUNDY, an individual ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NIRVANA LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; LIVE NATION MERCHANDISE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; MERCH TRAFFIC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SILVA ARTIST MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 56305
D.C. No. 2:21−cv−03621−DSF−MAA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale Fischer , District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 2 0 , 202 3 Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and KOH , Circuit Judges, and McMAHON , ** District Judge

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Jocelyn Susan Bundy brought this copyright infringement action against Nirvana LLC, Live National Merchandise LLC, Merch Traffic LLC, and Silva Artist Management LLC (collectively, Defendants) for unlicensed use of her grandfather C.W. Scott

- Giles’ s drawing of “Upper Hell” from Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy (the “Illustration”)

. Bundy appeals t he district court ’s
dismissal of her case for forum non conveniens , contending that the U nited
K ingdom is an inadequate forum and that the remaining forum non conveniens
factors favor suit in the U nited S tates

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of
discretion the district court’s dismissal based on forum non conveniens , see Lewis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 953 F.3d 1160, 1163

– 64 (9th Cir. 2020) , and its denial of a motion for reconsideration, see Zamani v. Carnes , 491 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2007)

. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case for
forum non conveniens and denying the related motion for reconsideration

. In reviewing a dismissal for forum non conveniens , we examine: (1) the adequacy of the alternate forum; (2) the deference owed a plaintiff’s chosen forum ; and (3)
whether the balance of private and public interest factors favor s dismissal. See Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. , 643 F.3d 1216, 12 24 (9th Cir. 2011)

.3

1. T he district court properly determined that the U nited K ingdom provides an adequate alternative forum. “ An alternative forum is deemed adequate if: (1) the defendant is amenable to process there; and (2) the other jurisdiction offers a satisfactory remedy. ” Id. at 1225. Here, Defendants are amenable to process in the U nited K ingdom because they accepted, as a condition for the
district court’s dismissal , that they must submit to personal jurisdiction in the
U nited K ingdom for all of Bundy’s claims

. See id

. Further, the district court correctly concluded that Lucasfilm Ltd. v . Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 does not preclude the U nited K ingdom from exercising jurisdiction over Bundy’s U.S. copyright claims. Lucasfilm h olds that the U nited K ingdom ’s jurisdiction is limited over foreign property disputes only where proceedings are “principally concerned” with the “question of title” or “the right to possession” of a foreign property right. I

d. [105] ; see also id. [101] (describing the “very narrow” question on appeal) . The main thrust of Lucasfilm is to expand the U nited K ingdom ’s jurisdiction over copyright infringement suits, rather than restrict it. See i d. Bundy contends that the principal issue in th is case is indeed the validity of her U.S. copyright interest , thus precluding U.K. jurisdiction under Lucasfi lm

. However, the district court correctly concluded that the validity issue here is probably secondary , as the face of Bundy’s complaint suggests that she does not
have an enforceable U.S. copyright interest

. And Bundy fails to allege how U.S.4

copyright law would protect the Illustration as a “foreign work

. ” She has not
demonstrated that the U nited K ingdom was a “treaty party” to the U nited S tates when the Illustration was published in 1949, which is required for a foreign work

to be enforceabl e under U.S

. law. 17 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1); see also 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 5.07 (2022). 1 Her allegations that the Illustration did not enter the public domain in the U nited S tates do not alter this statutory requirement. By contrast , whether the Illustration has copyright protection under U.K. law
remains a threshold legal question to be addressed by the U.K. courts

. The district court need not have accepted as true Bundy’s lega l conclusion in her complaint
that she is the sole owner of the Illustration

. See Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. , 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021). And e ven though two witnesses have provided declarations disclaiming ownership of a U.K. copyright inte rest in the
Illustration , Bundy has yet to present affirmative evidence proving sole owne rship or ownership at all

. Given that Bundy’s evidence does not conclusively resolve the ownership issue, and that Defendants plan to continue to challeng e Bundy’s ownership going forward , ownership of a U.K. copyright interest in the Illustration

1 In her briefing, Bundy cites to the Berne Convention as the international treaty that supports U.S. copyright protection for her U.K. work. However, the United States did not join the Berne Convention until 1989. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 5.07; 9 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright app. 20 (collecting all international copyright treaties with the United States).5

persists as a threshold issue in th is case

. As a result, Lucasfilm does not bar U.K. jurisdiction, and t he district court properly determined that the U nited K ingd om serves as an adequate forum

. 2. Nor did t he district court abuse its discretion in concluding that Bundy’s forum choice is afforded “less deference” because she is a foreign plaintiff

. Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte, Ltd. , 61 F.3d 696, 703 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981) )

. Although Defendants are headquartered in the U nited S tates , see Carijano , 643 F.3d at 1229,
this connection to the U nited S tates alone does not warrant increased deference.
See Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa , 211 F.3d 509, 5 13

– 1 4 (9th Cir. 2000)

. 3. W ith less ened deference to Bundy ’s choice of forum , the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the public and private interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. , 236 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001)

. A number of public interest factors weigh in Defendants’ favor , including the need to apply U.K. and German law, see Leetsch v. Freedman , 260 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2001) , the unwarranted potential burden on U.S. courts ,

see Lueck , 236 F.3d at 1147, and the fact that a trial in the U nited K ingdom would be “speedier” than one in the Central District, Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jenson , 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9t h Cir. 1984)

. While Bundy is correct that our circuit is split on
the appropriate way to apply the local interest factor, see Carijano , 643 F.3d at6

1233 n.3, we need not decide that issue because the remaining factors either favor
dismissal or are neutral even if the local interest factor were to weigh in Bundy’s
favor

. Among the private interest factors, the r esidence and c onvenience of the

p arties and w itnesse s, a ccess to e vidence , and enforceability of judgment also favor
dismissal. See Lueck , 236 F.3d at 1145

. Material evidence and witnesses related

to ownership are in the U nited K ingdom , and ownership is a critical threshold issue
that a U.K. court is more equipped to resolve

. Moreover, it is possible for Bundy to enforce a U.K. judgment i n the U nited S tates

. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § § 1715(a) , 1716(a)

– (d), 1723 ; Carijano , 643 F.3d at 1231

– 32; Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre
Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme , 433 F.3d 1199 , 1213

– 15 (9th Cir. 2006)

. And t o the extent Bundy may face difficulty collecting evidence from the U nited S tates , see Lueck , 236 F.3d at 1145, the district court conditioned dismissal on the Defendants’ agreement to use the discovery procedures set forth in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and to voluntarily p roduce documents and witnesses
under their control in the U nited S tates for use in the U.K. suit. “In cases concerning foreign plaintiffs, this court rarely has reversed a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens .” Vivendi SA
v. T

- Mobile USA Inc. , 586 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2009). W ith the “highly
deferential” standard of review in mind , id. , w e hold that the district court did not7

abuse its discretion in dismissing this case for forum non conveniens and denying Bundy’s motion for reconsideration

. 2
AFFIRMED.

2 Because we affirm the district court’s decision, we do not reach the question of whether this case should be reassigned upon remand.