Grosso

facts adduced during the summary judgment pro- ceedings on Grosso’s copyright claim can support the Desny claim set forth in Grosso’s complaint. Our decision is compelled by the procedural posture of the Desny claim. Because the district court granted Miramax’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), our inquiry begins and ends with Grosso’s First Amended Complaint. See Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (stat- ing that “[t]he focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal — both in the trial court and on appeal — is the complaint”). Further, we must take all factual allega- tions as true and must construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Allied Sig- nal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692, 695 (9th Cir. 1999). With those limitations on our review in mind, we hold only that the First Amended Com- plaint states a Desny claim. We need not and do not decide whether the summary judgment record or any future record, yet to be developed, supports that claim.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge…