A federal judge in California has dismissed a suit against Walt Disney Pictures and others over the alleged authorship of the animated film “Zootopia.”

U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California on Monday granted a motion for dismissal without leave to amend.

Plaintiff Brian Neil Hoff and Gary L. Goldman’s Esplanade Productions sued Disney, ABC, Buena Vista Home Entertainment and related entities claiming copyright infringement, breach of implied contract, unfair competition, conversion and breach of confidence in connection with the film, which won the Academy Award for best animated feature in 2016.

The court dismissed all five claims, holding that Hoff failed to establish substantial similarity between the two films, and that his implied contract claim was time-barred in California.

In his suit, Hoff alleged that Disney’s Zootopia copied certain copyrighted elements of his original screenplay titled, “Secret Agent 00K9,” or “00K9,” which he wrote in 2007 about various animals—anthropomorphic characters—who follow clues to solve crime. In Hoff’s 00K9, the main character is a dog brought out of retirement.

The court ruled that Zootopia—about a rabbit policewoman named Judy Hopps who partners with a con-artist fox named Nick Wilde to solve a missing-animal crime and defeat a sheep’s mischievous plan to seize political control of Zootopia—lacked “substantial similarity” on many levels, including storyline and character descriptions, that was enough to dismiss Hoff’s claims.

Roger Behle Jr. of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis in Santa Barbara represented the plaintiffs. Behle was not available for comment.

Drew Breuder of O’Melveney & Myers in Los Angeles represented Disney and the other defendants. Breuder also was not immediately available.

Hoff alleged that sometime after completing 00K9, he contacted Disney and the other defendants to pitch them the project. Hoff claimed he had “numerous” conversations with those defendants and gave them access to his secure website so they could review his screenplay and other material.

Disney passed on 00K9, but in 2016, Disney released Zootopia, which also involved anthropomorphic animals investigating crime, along with related books and other material featuring the characters.

In July 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss, but also granted leave to amend.

On Monday, Guilford, considering the amended suit, noted that the plaintiffs argued that the copyright claim is “governed by a more ‘relaxed’ pleading standard such that plaintiff ‘need not identify similarities or other details of the [alleged] infringement in [his] pleadings.’

“But it’s well established that, in the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff must plausibly allege substantial similarity between the two works to sustain his copyright claim,” Guilford wrote. “The many district court cases plaintiff cites to support a different view all predate the Rentmeester decision and are otherwise unconvincing.”

Hoff’s contention that his burden of showing substantial similarity should be lessened by the substantial access defendants allegedly had to his copyrighted materials ”is at odds with clear Ninth Circuit precedent,” Guilford also said.

The extrinsic test, he said, measures the “objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements of the plaintiff’s expression.” The intrinsic test, on the other hand, “requires a more holistic, subjective comparison of the works to determine whether they are substantially similar in “total concept and feel.”

“Here, defendants argue plaintiff’s copyright claim fails as a matter of law because plaintiff can’t show substantial similarity under the extrinsic test,” wrote Guilford. “The Court agrees,” he said, finding ”insufficient similarity between the two works.”

He added that a contrary ruling “would have the peculiar result of giving plaintiff a monopoly over all animated films involving crime-fighting, talking animals.”

He noted ”no character similarities between 00K9 and Zootopia showing substantial similarity under the extrinsic test.”

The judge also agreed with the defendants’ contention that Hoff’s implied contract claim is time-barred under California’s two-year limitations period for contract claims. “Implied contract claims accrue at the time of the alleged breach. And here, the alleged breach occurred in 2016, when defendants released Zootopia in the United States,” Guilford wrote.

The plaintiffs’ “position depends on a continuing violations theory, which, according to defendants, doesn’t apply to claims for breach of implied,” he added. “In any case, plaintiff’s implied contract claim fails on its merits, too.”

Guilford also agreed that the remaining state law claims for conversion and unfair competition are preempted by the Copyright Act. ”These allegations clearly show plaintiff’s claims for conversion and unfair competition involve the same subject matter and rights as his copyright claim. Consequently, these claims are preempted by the Copyright Act.”

Hoff argued that his conversion claim isn’t preempted because “defendants received an actual tangible item that was never returned to him, his screenplay,” but ”this argument is unconvincing,” the judge said. “Though plaintiff alleges defendants received tangible copies of plaintiff’s screenplay, plaintiff’s conversion claim is, at its core, a claim for copyright infringement.”

Guilford denied leave to amend because he ”has determined, as a matter of law, that 00K9 and Zooptopia aren’t substantially similar.”