Thomas

MEMORANDUM **

Deborah J. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir.2009), and affirm.

The district court properly entered judgment for defendants because, as a matter of law, Thomas’s literary work was not “substantially similar” to defendants’ animated movie. See Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.2006) (“Absent evidence of direct copying, proof of infringement involves ... showing[ ] that ... the two works are substantially similar.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); id. (“ [Substantial similarity may [] be decided as a matter of law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plot, characters, and mood of the two works were not substantially similar. See id. at 1077 (“The substantial-similarity test contains an extrinsic [ ] component.... The extrin *695 sic test focuses on articulable similarities between the plot ... mood ... characters, and sequence of events in the two works.”) (internal brackets and quotation marks…