HOWARD v. PEARL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-20No. No. 20-55959

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for consideration of whether the separate-accrual rule applies to Howard's copyright claims.

Jermaine Jevon Howard appealed the dismissal of his copyright infringement lawsuit, which the district court had rejected as barred by the three-year statute of limitations under copyright law. Howard's complaint alleged that songs he co-authored with the defendants in 1996 were being sold without authorization. The appellate court found that the district court erred in dismissing the case without considering whether the separate-accrual rule might apply—a doctrine that allows the limitations period to restart with each new infringing act.

Under the separate-accrual rule, each time a copyrighted work is sold or distributed constitutes a separate infringement that triggers its own three-year window for filing suit. Because Howard's amended complaint specifically alleged that the songs continue to be sold, the court determined the district court should have analyzed whether this ongoing sales activity revived his ability to sue, rather than dismissing the case outright.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Application of the three-year copyright statute of limitations
Whether the separate-accrual rule permits a new limitations period for each infringing act
Whether ongoing infringement through continued sales extends the filing deadline

Procedural posture

Howard appealed pro se from a district court judgment that dismissed his copyright infringement action as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jermaine Jevon Howard appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Howards copyright claims as untimely under the Copyright Acts three-year statute of limitations, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), because Howard claimed infringement of his copyright in songs that he allegedly co-authored with defendants in 1996. See Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 706 (9th Cir. 2004) (copyright claim must be filed within three years after accrual). In his second amended complaint, Howard alleged that the songs continue to be sold. Accordingly, we reverse the district courts dismissal of the copyright claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and remand for consideration of whether the separate accrual rule applies. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 671, 134 S.Ct. 1962, 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014) (under the separate-accrual rule for copyright claims, “each infringing act starts a new limitations period”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., 971 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2020) (three-year statute of limitations runs separately for each violation).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

REVERSED and REMANDED.