Steppin' Out, Inc. v. National Savings Corp.

MEMORANDUM *

1. The district court was not obligated to entertain defendants’ untimely argument that plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue. Defendants, through diligence, could have discovered plaintiffs lack of capacity and amended their answer to include lack of capacity as a defense. Because they did not, they waived the defense. See De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874 , 878 (9th Cir.2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion by avoiding the formality and delay of substituting the parties in response to an untimely motion.

2. The district court properly asserted personal jurisdiction over defendants because they willfully infringed plaintiffs copyrights, knew their activities would reach Nevada, and also knew plaintiffs harm would be felt in Nevada. See Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 , 289 (9th Cir.1997), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 , 118 S.Ct. 1279 , 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998).

3. The district court was correct to find sufficient originality in the compilation — its look, design and arrangement — to support copyright protection. See Feist…