Jazan Wild, an individual, DBA Carnival Comics v. Nbc Universal, a Delaware corporation;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAZAN WILD, an individual, DBA
Carnival Comics,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NBC UNIVERSAL, a Delaware
corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56065
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03615-GAF-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Jazan Wild appeals the district court’s decision
dismissing his copyright infringement and related state law claims against NBC
FILED
FEB 28 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Universal, Inc. and Tailwind Productions, Inc. (“NBC”). Plaintiff contends that the
fourth season of NBC’s television series Heroes infringed his three-part graphic
novel, Jazan Wild’s Carnival of Souls (“Souls”). The district court took judicial
notice of the two works and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend based
on a lack of substantial similarity in their protectable elements. Wild v. NBC
Universal, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1090 & n.1, 1110-11 (C.D. Cal. 2011). The
district court also dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims, finding them preempted by
the Copyright Act. Id. at 1110-11. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and affirm.
I.
To prevail on his copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show both
access and substantial similarity. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co.,
462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). To establish substantial similarity, a plaintiff
must satisfy both an extrinsic test, focusing on objective elements, and an intrinsic
test, focusing an ordinary person’s subjective impressions. Id. at 1077. Under the
extrinsic test, we evaluate dramatic and literary works for “‘articulable similarities
between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence
of events’ in the two works.” Id. (citation omitted). The district court analyzed the
two works in detail and concluded that “[o]ther than the presence of generic

-- 2 of 4 --

Although Plaintiff contends that the district court should have given him an1
opportunity to submit expert testimony in support of his claims, he has never
articulated how an expert could assist the court’s analysis in the particular
circumstances of this case. Although expert testimony is often necessary when
evaluating substantial similarity, see, e.g., Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212
F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000), there is no categorical rule prohibiting courts from
conducting such an evaluation without it, see Christianson v. W. Pub. Co., 149
F.2d 202, 204 (9th Cir. 1945).
3
carnival elements and standard scenes that logically flow from those elements, the
two works differ radically in their plot and storylines, their characters, the
dialogue, the setting and themes, and the mood.” Wild, 788 F. Supp. 2d at 1090.
We have independently reviewed the works and agree.1
Plaintiff also contends that the two works are visually similar, juxtaposing a
number of screen shots from Heroes with individual frames from Souls, including
depictions of a character approaching a carnival, characters in the house of mirrors,
and a view through a gun sight. These images, however, are simply unprotectable
“stock scenes” or “scenes a faire” (situations that naturally flow from a basic
premise). See Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2002).
Any remaining comparable aspects of these scenes constitute nothing more than
“random similarities scattered throughout the works” that are insufficient to
support a claim of substantial similarity. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352,
1356 (9th Cir. 1984). Consequently, the district court correctly found that – even

-- 3 of 4 --

Plaintiff initially suggested that the district court improperly dismissed his2
state law claims, but then failed to support his argument with any analysis in his
opening brief. Summary assertions of this nature are not sufficient to preserve a
claim for review. Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770, 776 n.3 (9th
Cir. 2010) (citing Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)).
4
assuming that NBC had access to Plaintiff’s work – Plaintiff cannot satisfy the
extrinsic test, and consequently, his copyright claim must fail.
II.
Plaintiff further contends that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his claims without leave to amend. Before the district court, Plaintiff
“did not propose any new facts or legal theories for an amended complaint and
therefore gave the [district court] no basis to allow an amendment.” Gardner v.
Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). On appeal, Plaintiff argues that he
may be able to allege a number of additional facts all concerning NBC’s alleged
access to Souls. The district court, however, assumed that NBC had access to the
work. Wild, 788 F. Supp. 2d at 1110. Consequently, any such amendment would
have no impact on our analysis. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend.2
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --