Rusty Lemorande v. Cameron Mackintosh Limited;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, United States District Judge**
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUSTY LEMORANDE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAMERON MACKINTOSH LIMITED;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55017
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00939-R-FMO
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MCNAMEE, District**
Judge.
FILED
MAR 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Rusty Lemorande appeals three orders of the district court granting motions
to dismiss his claims on a multitude of grounds filed by defendants Cameron
MacKintosh Ltd., Cameron MacKintosh, Alain Boublil Music, Ltd., Arclight Films
International, LLC, and Gary Hamilton. We affirm in part, and vacate in part.
We agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The
essence of Lemorande’s claims is that he was authorized to prepare a derivative
work based on Miss Saigon, pursuant to an agreement with defendants. That
MacKintosh later threatened to sue him for copyright infringement does not alter
the fact that his rights and liabilities sound in contract and do not arise under the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. See Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. v. Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that
“[f]ederal courts have consistently dismissed complaints in copyright cases
presenting only questions of contract law” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
The district court thus had “no discretion to retain the supplemental claims for
adjudication.” Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805
(9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the district
court lacked jurisdiction, we therefore vacate all of its remaining rulings. Thus,
Lemorande may pursue his state court causes of action without prejudice because
the district court lacked authority to dismiss them with prejudice. We dismiss

-- 2 of 3 --

Appellees Arclight Films’s and Gary Hamilton’s Motion to Strike Portions of
Appellant’s Reply Brief as moot. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --