Scott Malcomson v. Topps, Inc.

459 F. App'x 672
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 28, 2011
Docket10-15540
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 F. App'x 672 (Scott Malcomson v. Topps, Inc.) 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
Scott Malcomson v. Topps, Inc., 459 F. App'x 672 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Scott Malcomson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging joint ownership of a copyright under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir.2000), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of reconsideration, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Malcomson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his periodic written contributions to a small portion of a popular science fiction gaming franchise satisfied the test for joint ownership of the entire work. See Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234 (listing factors to determine whether a work is jointly authored in the absence of a contract for purposes of a copyright claim of joint ownership).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration be *674 cause Malcomson failed to establish that it committed “clear error” or made a decision that was “manifestly unjust.” Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740.

Malcomson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-malcomson-v-topps-inc-ca9-2011.