RON VOSS V. JERRY KNOTTS, No. 12-56168 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RON G. VOSS, ) ) Plaintiff - Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) JERRY E. KNOTTS; ELECTRONIC ) ARTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) DBA EA Sports; PROCTER & ) GAMBLE MANUFACTURING CO.;) VIACOM INC., a Delaware ) corporation; VIACOM ) INTERNATIONAL INC., ) a Delaware corporation, ) ) Defendants - Appellees. ) ) No. 12-56168 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00842-H-KSC MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 8, 2014** Pasadena, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Ron G. Voss appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to Jerry E. Knotts, Electronic Arts, Inc., Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., Viacom Inc., and Viacom International Inc. (collectively Knotts ) on the basis that Voss lacked standing to pursue the action. We affirm. The district court did not err when it determined that because Voss had not listed his alleged copyright in his bankruptcy schedules, ownership of the asset1 remained in the bankruptcy estate2 and he lacked standing to pursue this action.3 Only the trustee of the bankruptcy estate would have standing. See 11 U.S.C. § 323(b); Estate of Spirtos v. Superior Court Case, 443 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). There is no basis to substitute the trustee in bankruptcy for Voss now, on appeal. Voss is not disabled from pursuing his appeal, and he has done so. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(b); Sable Commc ns of Cal., Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 890 1 See Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. E. Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2012). 2 See Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 945 46 (9th Cir. 2001); Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 325, 125 S. Ct. 1561, 1565, 161 L. Ed. 2d 563 (2005). 3 See Cusano, 264 F.3d at 945; Diamond Z Trailer, Inc. v. JZ, L.L.C. (In re JZ, L.L.C.), 371 B.R. 412, 418 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007). 2 F.2d 184, 191 n.13 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, a substitution of parties would not change the fact that the district court did not err. We deny the motion to substitute. AFFIRMED; motion DENIED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.