SEVEN ARTS PICTURES, INC., a Nevada corporation v. 9MD UK LIMITED, an English corporation

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEVEN ARTS PICTURES, INC., a
Nevada corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
9MD UK LIMITED, an English
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-55331
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03974-PA-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 11, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, HAWKINS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. (“Seven Arts”) brought this action seeking a
declaration that it is the rightful owner of the copyrights to the movie “Nine Miles
Down” and tort damages for intentional interference with contractual relations. The
FILED
FEB 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Even if we were to reach the merits, we would determine that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in either declining to exercise declaratory judgment
jurisdiction, see Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282 (1995), or in abstaining
from hearing the tort claim against 9MD out of comity with ongoing proceedings in
the United Kingdom, see Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 Any pending motions are denied as moot.
2
district court denied Seven Arts’s motion for default judgment and dismissed the case.
We also dismiss.
We need not reach the merits of this appeal because Seven Arts has repeatedly
failed to comply with both the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) and
the Rules of this court. First, Seven Arts failed to provide a statement in its opening
brief of the basis for this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction. See FRAP
28(a)(4)(B); Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.2. Further, Seven Arts has taken a rather casual
approach to this court’s rules through its repeated docketing problems and serious
misstatements of law in its opening brief. Seven Arts has given us no impetus to
mitigate the “apparent harshness” of this sanction. See Mitchel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 689
F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we strike Seven Arts’ opening brief and
dismiss.1 Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1(a); see N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d
1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997).
APPEAL DISMISSED.2

-- 2 of 2 --