NORMAN L. ADAMS, Jr.; YULING S. ADAMS v. Mariella Agrusa; Family 1st Investments, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN L. ADAMS, Jr.; YULING S.
ADAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARIELLA AGRUSA; FAMILY 1ST
INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56170
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07270-SVW-
RAO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Norman L. Adams, Jr. and Yuling S. Adams appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment following a bench trial and partial summary judgment in their
action alleging copyright infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-56170
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Worth v.
Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment as to defendant
Agrusa’s innocent infringement because appellants failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether Agrusa knew that her use of the photographs at issue
constituted copyright infringement. See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942,
957-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]illful refers to conduct that occurs with knowledge
that the defendant’s conduct constitutes copyright infringement.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly concluded that Agrusa was liable for one count of
copyright infringement because the photographs at issue were all part of the same
marketing compilation for the subject residential property. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 504(c)(1) (“[A]ll the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one
work.”); Columbia Pictures TV, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259
F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (to qualify as a separate independent work for
purposes of copyright protection the material must have an independent economic
value).
We are unable to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the district
court’s conduct of the trial and evidentiary rulings during the trial because
appellants failed to provide any portion of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-56170
10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is
unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must
include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or
conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991)
(dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to comply with Fed. R. App.
P. 10(b)(2)).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --