
    Kenneth W. PENDERS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEGA OF AMERICA, INC.; Electronic Arts, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-55544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 11, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
    Ryan Christopher Harshman, I, Esquire, Michael L. Lovitz, Esquire, Lovitz IP Law, PC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Rodger Ryan Cole, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, Jennifer Lloyd Kelly, Esquire, Fenwick & West, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Rodger Ryan Cole, Jennifer Lloyd Kelly, Esquire, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael H. Simon, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth W. Penders, II (“Penders”) appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his claims against SEGA of America, Inc. (“SEGA”) and Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) for copyright infringement and related claims arising out of SEGA’s and EA’s alleged use of Penders’s copyrighted “Sonic the Hedgehog” creations, particularly in the Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood video game. Penders argues on appeal that the district court improperly applied the flrst-to-flle rule and that the court should have stayed, rather than dismissed, the case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court properly exercised its discretion when it applied the flrst-to-flle rule. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1991). Chronology, similarity of parties, and similarity of issues all support that discretionary ruling. See id.

Penders failed to apprise the district court why dismissal would negatively impact his potential monetary award. Because the district court was not informed of this, it did not abuse its discretion when it chose to dismiss without prejudice, rather than stay, the Second California Action.

AFFIRMED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     