Court Opinion

ID: 9396156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:30.510632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.365028
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SKYDANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a                    No. 22-55236
California limited liability company;
SKYDANCE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a                    D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08145-CBM-JC
California limited liability company;
GEMINI PICTURES, LLC, a California
limited liability company,                      MEMORANDUM*

                Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

KISSINGER NKOSINATHI SIBANDA,
Esquire,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                  Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda appeals pro se the district court’s post-

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for

attorney’s fees. Tresóna Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High Sch. Vocal Music

Ass’n, 953 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sibanda’s motion

for attorney’s fees because Sibanda is not a “prevailing party” in this action and

otherwise failed to demonstrate he is entitled to fees. See Cadkin v. Loose, 569

F.3d 1142, 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that, under 17 U.S.C. § 505,

district courts may only award attorney’s fees to a party that “in fact prevailed on

the copyright claim;” a defendant is not a prevailing party where a plaintiff is free

to refile a copyright claim against the defendant following a voluntary dismissal of

the complaint); F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d

1128, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a court is vested with inherent

power to sanction litigation misconduct and stating that, “[w]ith respect to

sanctions, a district court’s factual findings are given great deference”).

      Sibanda’s requests for oral argument and remand to a different district judge,

set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                              2                                22-55236