Mostowfi

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the court’s opinion except for its holding that the complaint “sounded in fraud” and was fatally unspecific. At the heart of the complaint are allegations that are specific as to time, place, the statements made, and the defendants who made them. These are allegations as to the stockholders’ meeting of 9/16/02. They allege a viable RICO claim for extortion. It is unmistakably alleged that Arena threatened Lim with death.

MEMORANDUM *

Darius Mostowfi, Teng Lew Lim, Fung Chee Lim, and Teng Howe Lim (“the plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 41(b). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedur *623 al history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs claims of copyright infringement. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, “the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it.” 17 U.S.C. § 501 (b). Thus, “[t]o be entitled to sue for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must be the ‘legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.’ ” Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 501 (b)).

It is undisputed that the Common Stock Purchase Agreement executed between the parties affirmed that SuperCaller, Inc., had ownership of all intellectual property, including patents and copyrights, that was necessary for the…