SONYA JASON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JANE FONDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding copyright infringement and that dismissal of pendent state claims was proper.
Plaintiff Sonya Jason sued defendants for copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation, and breach of implied contract, alleging their…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misappropriation cases and more on FLexlaw
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
Sonya Jason brought an action against Jane Fonda and eight other defendants for copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation, and breach of implied contract. Mrs. Jason’s primary allegation was that the defendants’ motion picture, Coming Home, infringed on the copyright in her novel, Concomitant Soldier — Woman and War. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the other claims. We affirm. Our review of the facts and issues leads us to concur in the well-reasoned decision of Judge Kelleher filed September 21, 1981. 526 F.Supp. 774 (C.D.Cal.1982). We therefore incorporate his memorandum of decision by reference. Judge Kelleher aptly points out:
(1) Mrs. Jason presented evidence showing no more than a “bare possibility” the defendants had access to her work. Such a showing is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See British Airways Board v. Boeing Company, 585 F. 2d 946, 952 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981 [99 S.Ct. 1790, 60 L.Ed.2d 241] (1979);
(2) Even assuming access, there was no substantial similarity between the two works under the standards announced by this court in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157 (9th Cir.1977); and
(3) It is proper to dismiss pendent state claims when the federal claim is dismissed prior to trial. Wham-O Mfg. Co. v. Paradise Manufacturing Co., 327 F. 2d 748, 753 (9th Cir.1964); see also, Wren v. Sletten Construction Co., 654 F. 2d 529, 536 (9th Cir.1981).
Additionally, Judge Kelleher did not abuse his discretion in handling discovery nor in denying Mrs. Jason’s motion for reconsideration.
The appellees’ request for sanctions and attorney’s fees is denied. Single costs are allowed.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984)
-
SEE v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- SID & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDONALD'S Corp. & Needham, 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977)
- Haas v. United States, 440 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1979)
- Arnold et ux. v. Johnson, 440 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1979)
- British Airways Bd. v. The Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1978)
- Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co., 654 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1981)
- Wham-O-Mfg. Co. v. Paradise Mfg. Co., 327 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1964)