FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FEB 21 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,                    No. 12-55998

             Plaintiff - Appellant,              D.C. No. 8:10-cv-01656-JST-RZ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM ADAMS, Jr., individually and
collectively as the music group the Black
Eyed Peas; STACY FERGUSON,
individually and collectively as the music
group the Black Eyed Peas; JAIME GOMEZ,
individually and collectively as the music
group the Black Eyed Peas; DAVID
GUETTA; FREDERICK RIESTERER; UMG
RECORDINGS, INC.; INTERSCOPE
RECORDS; EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC.;
HEADPHONE JUNKIE PUBLISHING, LLC;
WILL.I.AM MUSIC, LLC; JEEPNEY
MUSIC, INC.; TAB MAGNETIC
PUBLISHING; CHERRY RIVER MUSIC
CO.; SQUARE RIVOLI PUBLISHING;
RISTER EDITIONS; SHAPIRO
BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.; ALLAN
PINEDA, Individually and collectively as the
music group the Black Eyed Peas,

             Defendants - Appellees.



        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,                    No. 12-56744

            Plaintiff - Appellee,                D.C. No. 8:10-cv-01656-JST-RZ

 v.

WILLIAM ADAMS, Jr., individually and
collectively as the music group the Black
Eyed Peas; STACY FERGUSON,
individually and collectively as the music
group the Black Eyed Peas; JAIME GOMEZ,
individually and collectively as the music
group the Black Eyed Peas; ALLAN
PINEDA, Individually and collectively as the
music group the Black Eyed Peas; DAVID
GUETTA; FREDERICK RIESTERER; UMG
RECORDINGS, INC.; INTERSCOPE
RECORDS; EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC.;
HEADPHONE JUNKIE PUBLISHING, LLC;
WILL.I.AM MUSIC, LLC; JEEPNEY
MUSIC, INC.; TAB MAGNETIC
PUBLISHING; CHERRY RIVER MUSIC
CO.; SHAPIRO BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.,

            Defendants - Appellants.



                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted February 7, 2014
                               Pasadena, California




                                          2
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.**

       Bryan Pringle (“Plaintiff”) appeals the district court’s decision granting summary

judgment to Defendants and its order of sanctions against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. §

1927. Defendants cross-appeal the district court’s refusal to impose sanctions on Plaintiff

and his counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

       Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendants violated the copyright of

his song “Take a Dive” and its derivative. “Take a Dive” was properly registered for

copyright in 1998. The evidence in support of Plaintiff, however, raises only the barest

possibility that Defendants had access to “Take a Dive,” and Plaintiff does not argue that

there is a “striking similarity” between “Take a Dive” and Defendants’ allegedly

infringing work. See Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 

, 1143–45

(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that where there is no more than a bare possibility of access,

summary judgment is appropriate); Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 

, 485

(9th Cir. 2000) (noting that if there is no evidence of access, infringement may be found

only if the songs are “strikingly similar”). Further, Plaintiff’s attempt to show a valid

copyright in the derivative version of “Take a Dive” fails because the copy deposited with




        **
             The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

                                              3
the U.S. Copyright Office was an impermissible reconstruction. See Kodadek v. MTV

Networks, Inc., 

, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 1998).

       Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering sanctions

against Plaintiff under § 1927 for improper service. See Lahiri v. Universal Music &

Video Distrib. Corp., 

, 1218 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s third attempt to

serve Rister Editions through Shapiro Bernstein & Co. violated a court order, and the

district court reasonably concluded it was “reckless[]” and that it “unreasonably and

vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.” Sanctions may be imposed for willful violation

of a court order without a showing or finding of bad faith. Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney

Mickell, 

, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012).

       Defendants’ cross-appeal is also unavailing. The district court reasonably

concluded that it could not “identify any single piece of unassailable evidence . . .

conclusively establishing that Pringle’s claim was legally and factually baseless.” See

Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 

, 1128 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to impose Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff and his

counsel.

       We therefore AFFIRM.




                                              4