Skydance Development, LLC v. Kissinger Sibanda

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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