Case Name: Ron G. VOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry E. KNOTTS; Electronic Arts, Inc., a Delaware corporation, DBA EA Sports; Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.; Viacom Inc., a Delaware corporation; Viacom International Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-22
Citations: 570 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 12-56168
Parties: Ron G. VOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry E. KNOTTS; Electronic Arts, Inc., a Delaware corporation, DBA EA Sports; Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.; Viacom Inc., a Delaware corporation; Viacom International Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
Ron G. VOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry E. KNOTTS; Electronic Arts, Inc., a Delaware corporation, DBA EA Sports; Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.; Viacom Inc., a Delaware corporation; Viacom International Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56168.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 8, 2014.
Filed April 22, 2014.
Daniel Anthony Lawton, Esquire, Law-ton Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul S. Marks, Timothy Lee Neufeld, Yuriko Mary Shikai, Neufeld, Marks & Gralnek, Randall L. Jackson, Robert N. Klieger, Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP, Leemore Kushner, Carlos A. Singer, Nhan Thien Vu, Paul J. Loh, Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ron G. Voss appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Jerry E. Knotts, Electronic Arts, Inc., Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., Viacom Inc., and Viacom International Inc. (collectively "Knotts") on the basis that Voss lacked standing to pursue the action. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it determined that because Voss had not listed his alleged copyright in his bankruptcy schedules, ownership of the asset remained in the bankruptcy estate and he lacked standing to pursue this action. Only the trustee of the bankruptcy estate would have standing. See 11 U.S.C. § 323(b); Estate of Spirtos v. Superior Court Case, 443 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006).
There is no basis to substitute the trustee in bankruptcy for Voss now, on appeal. Voss is not disabled from pursuing his appeal, and he has done so. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(b); Sable Comme'ns of Cal., Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 890 F.2d 184, 191 n. 13 (9th Cir.1989). Moreover, a substitution of parties would not change the fact that the district court did not err. We deny the motion to substitute.
AFFIRMED; motion DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. E. Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.2012).
. See Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 945-46 (9th Cir.2001); Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir.1982); see also Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 325, 125 S.Ct. 1561, 1565, 161 L.Ed.2d 563 (2005).
. See Cusano, 264 F.3d at 945; Diamond Z Trailer, Inc. v. JZ, L.L.C. (In re JZ, L.L.C.), 371 B.R. 412, 418 (9th Cir. BAP 2007).