Patrice Edwards v. Cinelou Films

Ninth Circuit

Patrice Edwards v. Cinelou Films

696 F. App'x 270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 2017

Docket16-56043

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 696 F. App'x 270 (Patrice Edwards v. Cinelou Films) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patrice Edwards v. Cinelou Films, 696 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patrice Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s copyright infringement action because, as a matter of law, Edwards’s works titled “Witch” and defendants’ film The Last Witch Hunter are not substantially similar under the extrinsic test. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the extrinsic test to assess substantial similarity between specific expressive elements of copyrighted works, such as plot, sequence of events, themes, mood, setting, pace, and characters); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076-78 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial similarity may be decided as a matter of law by applying the extrinsic test).

We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Patrice Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s copyright infringement action because, as a matter of law, Edwards’s works titled “Witch” and defendants’ film The Last Witch Hunter are not substantially similar under the extrinsic test. See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the extrinsic test to assess substantial similarity between specific expressive elements of copyrighted works, such as plot, sequence of events, themes, mood, setting, pace, and characters); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076-78 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial similarity may be decided as a matter of law by applying the extrinsic test).

We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 F. App'x 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrice-edwards-v-cinelou-films-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack