Ahab Joseph Nafal v. Jay Z;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHAB JOSEPH NAFAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAY Z; et al.
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55615
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06238-SVW-
PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ahab Joseph Nafal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d
1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly held that the Copyright Act of 1909 governs
Nafal’s claim because the musical composition for which Nafal claims to own an
exclusive license was created in or around 1957, before the effective date of the
Copyright Act of 1976. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entm’t Distrib.,
429 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir. 2005); Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708, 712 n.1 (9th Cir.
1998). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed this action because Nafal
failed to join the copyright owners as required under the Copyright Act of 1909.
See Followay Prods., Inc. v. Maurer, 603 F.2d 72, 74-75 (9th Cir. 1979) (stating
that “the owner of a copyright is an indispensable party to an infringement action
by a licensee”); Cable Vision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc., 335 F.2d 348, 353-54 (9th Cir.
1964) (stating that “an exclusive licensee may not alone maintain an infringement
action” and must “join[] the copyright owner”).
We deny as moot defendants’ motions for judicial notice, filed on December
21, 2012, because the district court in the instant action granted judicial notice of
these documents, and they are already part of the record.
AFFIRMED.
12-55615 2

-- 2 of 2 --