U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
(6) digital album cover art for other albums; (7) another display of the digital album cover art for She& Him; (8) a pop-up alert or notification from the Local Concerts application; (9) an in-applicationdisplay of the Photo with two other images of other musicians/artists; (10) a menu from theGoldenvoice.com website; and (11) another display of the Photo. (
In the Complaint, Thale seeks, among other relief, “damages in the amount of her actualdamages and any profits of the Defendant attributable to the infringing acts alleged [t]herein,consistent with 17 U.S.C. [section] 504(a)(1), or, upon election, an award of statutory damagesconsistent with 17 U.S.C. [section] 504(a)(2) together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.”(Compl. at Prayer for Relief ¶ A.) The profits portion of the damages claim is at issue in this Motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute as to any material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seekingsummary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, discovery responses, and affidavits thatdemonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). Material facts are those that might affect the outcome of the case.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The “mere existence of
alleged factual dispute betweenthe parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; therequirement is that there be no
at 247–48 (dispute as to a materialfact is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party).Where the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmativelydemonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.
Soremekun v.Thrifty Payless, Inc.
, 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). On an issue where the non-moving party will
The Court notes that Thale disputes only two of Apple’s undisputed material facts, specifically RSS Nos. 4 and 5. However, Thale provides no evidence to show there is a triable issue of fact and merelyrefers to Court to the underlying evidence provided by Apple in support of the fact. Because Thalehas failed to substantiate her claimed dispute of these facts, they are deemed undisputed for the purposes of this Motion.
Case4:11-cv-03778-YGR Document89 Filed06/26/13 Page3 of 15