Does the Ninth Circuit's ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the musical composition infringement claim appeal constitute a wrongful undermining of appellate jurisprudence?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Petition involves two consolidated copyright infringement cases (Case 1712 and Case 4167) regarding a hip-hop “beat track,” i.e., the background music of a hip-hop song. A beat track is a single work of authorship that is simultaneously created as both a musical composition and a sound recording. Although one work, it legally may be registered for copyright in both categories. The district court made an order consolidating Case 1712 (sound recording infringement) with Case 4167 (musical composition infringement), and instructed counsel to make all future filings in Case 1712. Thereafter, counsel and the court made all filings in Case 1712 with exceptions noted below in italics. After granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment that was filed in Case 1712, but expressly covered both cases, the court filed the identical Statement of Ruling and Judgment in both Cases, but only gave Frisby notice of the filing in Case 1712. On appeal the Ninth Circuit ruled that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the musical composition infringement claim appeal (Case 4167) because although Frisby filed a notice of appeal from the Judgment filed in Case 1712, he did not also file a notice of appeal from the identical Judgment filed in Case 4167. The Question Presented Is: 1. Does the arguably cavalier manner in which the Ninth Circuit erroneously ruled that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction constitute a wrongful undermining of appellate jurisprudence that it so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?