FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHAB JOSEPH NAFAL, No. 07-56488
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-02480-SVW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SHAWN CARTER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
EMI MUSIC PUBLISHING LTD.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
EMI MUSIC INC.,
Defendant.
AHAB JOSEPH NAFAL, an individual, No. 08-55540
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02480-SVW-
PJW
v.
SHAWN CARTER, p/k/a JAY-Z; et al.,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Defendants,
and
ROB BOURDON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
AHAB JOSEPH NAFAL, an individual, No. 08-55543
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02480-SVW-
PJW
v.
SHAWN CARTER, p/k/a JAY-Z; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC, INC.; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010
Pasadena, California
-3-
Before: FARRIS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and CAMP, Senior District
Judge.**
This case involves Plaintiff Ahab Joseph Nafal’s appeal from the district
court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Defendants dismissing his copyright
infringement claim for lack of standing, as well as a cross appeal by some of the
Defendants from the district court’s denial of their motion for statutory fees and
costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We affirm.
First, assuming without deciding that the Copyright Act of 1976 governs
standing in this case, and for the ample reasons articulated in the district court’s
opinion, see Nafal v. Carter, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1139–44 (C.D. Cal. 2007), the
assignment documents at issue here did not actually grant Plaintiff an ownership
interest in an exclusive copyright license. Rather, the documents were a disguised
assignment of a cause of action prohibited under Silvers v. Sony Pictures
Entertainment, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 884–89 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Plaintiff
appropriately concedes that he would lack standing to sue if he were not the co-
owner of the exclusive license. See id. at 886. Consequently, the district court
properly granted summary judgment to Defendants.
**
The Honorable Jack J. Camp, Senior United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
-4-
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 505
motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553,
556 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d
895, 900 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also The Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath,
340 F.3d 829, 833 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In exercising this discretion, district courts
are given ‘wide latitude.’” (citation omitted)). Although Defendants succeeded in
dismissing the case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the case
presented complex legal and factual issues; that Plaintiff had sufficient factual and
legal bases for his standing claim; that Plaintiff did not bring the instant lawsuit in
bad faith; or that the case did not ultimately further the goals of the Copyright Act
or significantly clarify the law.
AFFIRMED .***
***
The Defendants' unopposed motions for judicial notice are granted.