SKYDANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company v. KISSINGER NKOSINATHI SIBANDA, Esquire

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SKYDANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
SKYDANCE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
GEMINI PICTURES, LLC, a California
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KISSINGER NKOSINATHI SIBANDA,
Esquire,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-55236
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08145-CBM-JC
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55236
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 of 2 --