Amanze v. Adeyemi ( 2020 )

19-2375
Amanze v. Adeyemi
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 5th day of October, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Stella Amanze,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 19-2375
Tomi Adeyemi, Macmillan Publishing Group LLC,
DBA Henry Holt and Company,
Defendants-Appellees,
Lola Shoneyin, DBA Ouida Books, John and Jane
Does 1–10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
For Plaintiff-Appellant: Stella Amanze, pro se, New York, NY.
For Defendants-Appellees: Robert D. Balin, Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Buchwald, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Stella Amanze (“Amanze”), proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the
district court dismissing her copyright complaint against Tomi Adeyemi (“Adeyemi”) and
Adeyemi’s publisher, Macmillan Publishing Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the contents of Children and Banished, the procedural history
of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Amanze alleged that Adeyemi’s 2018 best-selling novel, Children of Blood and Bone
(hereinafter, Children), copied characters, plots, and themes from Amanze’s self-published novel
Banished. After thoroughly examining each of the books, the district court granted Defendants’
motion to dismiss, concluding that, “at anything but the most abstract levels of generality, the two
works are nothing alike, let alone substantially similar.” Amanze v. Adeyemi, No. 18-CV-8808
(NRB), 2019 WL 2866071, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019). We review that decision de novo. See
Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 65–66 (2d Cir. 2010). We
agree with the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court, and for substantially the
same reasons, we affirm.
Here, our independent review of Banished and Children reveals that the district court
correctly determined that the novels are not substantially similar as a matter of law. As the district
court concluded, the books contain entirely distinct plots, characters, themes, and settings; further,
the overall concept and feel are utterly different. See Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 588 (2d
Cir. 1996). The only apparent similarities between the books—such as the existence of magic,
love, royalty, and evil—are unprotectable abstract ideas or scenes a faire that flow naturally from
such ideas. See id. at 587; see also Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 296–97 (6th
2
Cir. 2004) (holding that “themes, such as saving the world, the battle between good and evil,
sibling rivalry or familial secrets and issues, and racial issues . . . and plots, such as foiling the
antagonist’s attempt to rule the world” are “beyond any level of abstraction at which copyright
protection might begin to attach”). To the extent Amanze argues that she has also met the
requirements of the “fragmented literal similarity test”—as opposed to or in addition to showing
that the total concept and feel of the books are similar—she fails to identify any examples of “direct
quotations or close paraphrasing,” as required to meet that test. Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol
Pub. Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 140 (2d Cir. 1998).
Finally, each of Amanze’s specific allegations of similarity raised on appeal fail because
those examples do not demonstrate any protectable similarity. We have previously rejected
“[s]uch a scattershot approach.” Williams, 84 F.3d at 590. In any event, after careful review of
each of Amanze’s examples, we find that they fail to show protectable similarities and instead
demonstrate abstract scenes a faire or dissimilarities between the novels.
Finally, because review of the complaint and the two manuscripts reveals that Amanze’s
claims are not merely “inadequately or inartfully pleaded” such that “she should therefore be given
a chance to reframe” them, we affirm the dismissal of her claims with prejudice. Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). In other words, there is nothing more that Amanze
could allege that would change the outcome of this case. The two books are simply not
substantially similar as a matter of law, which leaves nothing for a jury to determine.
We have considered all of Amanze’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
3