Andre Fiset v. Shan Sayles Studio 1 Amusements, Inc.

963 F.2d 379 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Andre FISET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shan SAYLES; Studio 1 Amusements, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 90-16548. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 11, 1992. * Decided May 22, 1992. 1 Before CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges and BURNS, District Judge ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Appellant Studio 1 Amusements, Inc. ("Studio 1") appeals the district court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and its denial of Studio 1's motion for a new trial. The district court had jurisdiction over Appellee Andre Fiset's federal copyright claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a). It had pendant jurisdiction over Fiset's state claims. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 4 * As a preliminary matter, we decline to accept Fiset's invitation to dismiss Studio 1's…