Lee v. amazon.com, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEOM SU LEE, No. 23-3132 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01090-RAJ Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* AMAZON.COM, INC., doing business as Amazon.com, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2025** Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Beom Su Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment); Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1987) (copyright infringement). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Lee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the copyrighted materials and the songs in the TJ Media karaoke machine sold on defendant’s website are either strikingly or substantially similar. See Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth elements to establish direct infringement); A&M Recs., Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Secondary liability for copyright infringement does not exist in the absence of direct infringement by a third party.”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 23-3132