Andreas Carlsson Production Ab; v. Jazan Wild, an individual, AKA Jason Barnes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREAS CARLSSON PRODUCTION
AB; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JAZAN WILD, an individual, AKA Jason
Barnes,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-55796
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-06049-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alexander F. MacKinnon, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 15, 2019***
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jazan Wild appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, after a
jury trial, granting declaratory relief in favor of plaintiffs Andreas Carlsson
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Production and Andreas Carlsson in their action under the Copyright Act against
him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly exercised its discretion in denying Wild’s motion
for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) because the verdict on
copyright infringement and unfair competition was supported by the clear weight
of the evidence. See Flores v. City of Westminster, 873 F.3d 739, 748 (9th Cir.
2017) (setting forth standard for granting new trial). Evidence presented at trial
supported the finding that the Beyond the Velvet Rope song lyrics and script did not
infringe on Wild’s copyrights. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “joint works”);
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 905 F.3d 1116, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth
elements of copyright infringement claim); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733,
742 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (addressing joint works). In its Memorandum
Opinion and Order denying Wild’s post-trial motions, the district court carefully
outlined the Carlsson parties’ “persuasive evidence” which supported the jury’s
verdict. That evidence justifies the court’s decision.
Wild waived his right to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter
of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) because he did not file a pre-
verdict motion under Rule 50(a). See Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 556
F.3d 1075, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2009). There was no plain error in the district court’s
denial of the Rule 50(b) motion. See Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
259 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that plain error review is limited to
whether there was any evidence to support the jury’s verdict).
Wild’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied
as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --