Candesha Washington v. Viacomcbs Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CANDESHA WASHINGTON, No. 21-55668
Plaintiff-Appellant,
D.C. No.
v. 2:20-cv-00435-CBM-PJW
VIACOMCBS INC.; DOES, 1 through 50,
inclusive, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 28, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Candesha Washington appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her
claim for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Washington
alleges that she is the author and registered copyright owner of a pilot script for a
proposed television series called #SquadGoals and a “treatment” of the pilot
*
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).
(collectively, “the works”), and that ViacomCBS infringed on the works in an
episode of the CBS television series Bull. Washington contends that the district
court applied an overly exacting pleading standard in dismissing her claim and
erred in not allowing Washington the opportunity to amend her complaint. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wilson v. Lynch,
835 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016), and affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim because Washington failed to
allege plausibly that her works were substantially similar to the Bull episode. See
Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 111, 1122–23 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that
courts may “consider substantial similarity” on a motion to dismiss where the two
works are properly before the court), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore v.
Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Generally, dismissal on
substantial similarity grounds is only appropriate if there are no alleged similarities
in protectable elements. See id.; Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., 958 F.3d 767, 775
(9th Cir. 2020); 3 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 9:86:50 (2021) (stating
that dismissal at the pleading stage is appropriate where “the similarities between
the two works are only in uncopyrightable material or are de minimis”).
Washington primarily alleges that abstract similarities exist between the
protagonists of the two works; however, the idea of a character is not protectable.
See Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002) (“One cannot
2
copyright the idea of an idealistic young professional choosing between financial
and emotional reward[.]”), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore, 952 F.3d
1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to
amend because the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that
leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be
cured by amendment); see also Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank S.F, 792
F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The district court’s discretion to deny leave to
amend is particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an
opportunity to amend [the] complaint.”).
AFFIRMED.
3