Kenneth Stern v. Robert Weinstein

Good Law
512 F. App'x 701
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 20, 201311-55436California887 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Stern appeals the district court’s (1) grant in part of defendants Robert Weinstein and Sara Weinstein’s Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss; (2) denial of Stern’s motion to amend the complaint; (B) grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining copyright claims; (4) award of attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act; and (5) denial of Stern’s application to recuse District Court Judge Gee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in granting defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss with respect to Stern’s invasion of privacy claim under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. To be actionable under the California Constitution, “invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 1 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 865 P.2d 633, 655 (1994). There is no factual or legal support for Stern’s contention that the disclosure of his listserv post rises to this high standard.

2. The district court also properly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.