Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Landa
| Decision Date | 26 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1340.,96-1340. |
| Citation | 974 F.Supp. 1 |
| Parties | COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, Inc.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Tristar Pictures, Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; United Artists Pictures, Inc.; Universal City Studios, Inc.; Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.; Columbia Tristar Home Video; Live Home Video, Inc. (Live America Inc.); Twentieth Century Fox Entertainment, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Domingo LANDA, individually and d/b/a Video City and Movie Trak; Jason Frank, individually and d/b/a Take Two Video; and Syed Ahmed, individually and d/b/a Video City, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jennifer A. Lazewski, Ronald Teeple, John Leonard, Defrees & Fiske, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
James A. Martinkus, Erwin, Martinkus, Cole & Ansel, Champaign, IL, for defendant Landa.
McLean Arnold, Bloomington, IL, for defendant Frank.
Robert C. Hofmann, Dougherty, Hofmann & Goodwin, Danville, IL, for defendant Ahmed.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. # 41]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs, numerous motion picture producers and distributors, filed this action against Defendants, three movie rental store owners, on July 11, 1996. The named Defendants include Domingo Landa, d/b/a VIDEO CITY and MOVIE TRAK, Jason Frank, d/b/a TAKE TWO VIDEO, and Syed Ahmed, d/b/a VIDEO CITY.1 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [Doc. # 33] alleges that Defendants illegally duplicated and distributed motion picture videocassettes in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106 (Copyright Infringement) and 5 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Trademark Infringement).
On November 21, 1996, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to Defendants Landa and Frank. Plaintiffs' motion seeks statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and permanent injunction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502. On December 5 and 12, 1996, Defendants Landa and Frank filed motions to extend time in which to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On December 11 and 16, 1996, the Court granted Defendants' motions, set a responsive pleading deadline, and directed the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of Local Rule 7.1 to all counsel.
On January 6, 1997, Defendant Landa filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 53], and a "Statement of Disputed Facts." [Doc. # 52]. Defendant Frank has not responded to Plaintiffs motion.
On December 16, 1996, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of Local Rule 7.1 to all counsel in hopes that Defendants would properly respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Unfortunately, despite the Court's efforts, Defendants have failed to comply with the local rule.
Local Rule 7.1(B) requires the party opposing a motion for summary judgment to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the motion unless the time is extended by the presiding judge for good cause shown. If no response is filed within the time limit, the presiding judge will presume there is no opposition and may rule on the motion without further notice to the parties. Local Rules 7.1(D)(1) and (2) (Amended, May 31, 1996) require that the party moving for summary judgment submit a "Statement of Undisputed Facts," and that the party opposing summary judgment submit a "Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts."
Local Rule 7.1(D)(2) further requires that the RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS numerically respond to each of the movant's undisputed facts. Local Rule 7.1(D)(2) further provides that:
The party will either admit or contest the fact. If the fact is contested, the party (1) shall submit a short and plain statement of why the fact is in dispute and (2) cite to discovery material or affidavits that support the contention that the fact is disputed.
The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly upheld the strict enforcement of the local rules and has sustained the entry of summary judgment when the non-movant has failed to submit a factual statement in the form required by the local rules. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994); see also Bell, Boyd & Lloyd v. Tapy, 896 F.2d 1101, 1103-04 (7th Cir. 1990); Skagen v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 910 F.2d 1498, 1500 (7th Cir.1990); Appley v. West, 929 F.2d 1176, 1179-80 (7th Cir.1991) (per curiam); Maksym v. Loesch, 937 F.2d 1237, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1991). When a non-movant fails to submit a "Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts" the non-movant thereby concedes the movant's version of the facts. Id.
In the instant action, Defendant Landa, filed a "Statement of Disputed Facts." [Doc. 52]. In its entirety, Defendant Landa's Statement of Disputed Facts states:
1. In July, 1996, Defendant Landa operated Video City, 1507 N. Prospect, Champaign IL; Video City, 322 E. Champaign, Rantoul IL; Movie Trak, 1253 E. Grove St., Rantoul IL; Video City, 1101 N. Main, Normal, IL. Landa has since closed Video City on Prospect Avenue in Champaign and Video City in Rantoul.
Defendant Landa did not file a RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS nor did Defendant Landa numerically respond to each of Plaintiffs' undisputed facts. See CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2). Indeed, as is evident from Landa's Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Landa concedes that no factual disputes exist. (See Doc. # 53 at p. 1-2). Defendant Landa did submit an affidavit which could conceivably create disputed issues of fact. However, because the affidavit conflicts with the statements in Landa's response memorandum and because Landa failed to comply with the local rule by not citing to the affidavit in a RESPONSE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS, the Court will not consider the affidavit in resolving the issues of liability raised by Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. See Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 922; see also Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 969 F.2d 534, 537 (7th Cir. 1992) (). Thus, other than the disputed issue of fact raised in Defendant Landa's Statement of Disputed Facts, the Court finds that Defendant Landa does not dispute Plaintiffs' version of the facts. See Id.
Finally, because Defendant Frank did not respond to Plaintiffs' motion, the Court similarly finds that Defendant Frank does not dispute Plaintiffs version of the facts. See Id.; see also CDIL-LR 7.1(B). Accordingly, the Court will set forth the undisputed facts below.
This copyright and trademark infringement action was brought by thirteen Plaintiffs against Domingo Landa, d/b/a Video City and Movie Trak, Jason Frank, d/b/a Take Two Video, and Syed Ahmed, d/b/a Video City. For the purposes of this motion for summary judgment, only Domingo Landa and Jason Frank remain as Defendants. The following individual Plaintiffs will be collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs include: (1) Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. ("Columbia"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (2) Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, Inc. ("Buena Vista"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (3) Disney Enterprise, Inc. ("Disney"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (4) Metro-Goldwyn Pictures, Inc. ("Metro-Goldwyn"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (5) Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (6) TriStar Pictures, Inc. ("TriStar"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (7) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation ("Twentieth Century"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (8) United Artists Pictures, Inc. ("United Artists"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (9) Universal City Studios, Inc. ("Universal"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (10) Warner Brothers, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, ("Warner Bros."), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware; (11) Columbia/TriStar Home Video ("Columbia/TriStar"), is a joint venture duly organized under the laws of the State of New York; (12) Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc. ("Twentieth Century Home Entertainment"), is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan; and (13) LIVE Home Video, Inc. and LIVE America Inc. ("Live Home Video"), are corporations duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and California. Each Plaintiff is engaged in interstate commerce involving the production, distribution and licensing of copyrighted motion pictures.
Defendant Landa, at all times relevant to this dispute, operated and continues to operate the following video stores:
Video City, 1507 N. Prospect, Champaign, Illinois.
Video City, 322 E. Champaign Ave., Rantoul, Illinois.
Movie Trak, 1253 E. Grove St., Rantoul, Illinois.
Video City, 1101 N. Main, Normal, Illinois.2 Each of the video stores operated by Landa ("the Landa Stores") rents and sells video-cassettes of motion pictures to the public.
Defendant Frank, at all times relevant to this dispute, operated and continues to operate the following video stores:
Take Two Video, 710 Eldorado Dr., Bloomington, Illinois.
Take Two Video, 829 East Camp St., East Peoria, Illinois.
Take Two Video, 223 East Main St., Knoxville,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Whitacre
...judgment when the non-movant fails to submit a factual statement in the form required by the local rules. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Landa, 974 F.Supp. 1, 3 (C.D.Ill.1997) (citing Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994)). However, strict enforcement of th......
-
Collezione Europa U.S.A. v. Hillsdale House, Ltd.
...(S.D.N.Y.1987). Summary judgment is often unavailable in copyright cases, given their subjective nature. See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Landa, 974 F.Supp. 1, 7 (C.D.Ill.1997) (citing Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir.1980)). However, "when the eviden......
-
Scott-Blanton v. Universal City Studios Prod. Lllp, Civil Action No. 07-0098 (RMU).
...and McMurtry's response to the interview question in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Landa, 974 F.Supp. 1, 7 (C.D.Ill.1997) (recognizing that "[a]lthough summary judgment is ordinarily disfavored in copyright infringement cases, when the......
-
Scott v. City of Peoria
...the movant's version of the facts. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Landa, 974 F. Supp. 1, 3 (C.D. Ill. 1997). However, a party's failure to submit a timely response to a motion for summary judgment does not automatical......
-
Sample Data as Evidence: Meeting the Requirements of Daubert and the Recently Amended Federal Rules of Evidence
...672, 673-74 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 1991); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Landa, 974 F. Supp. 1, 12 (D.D.C. 1997); Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, 910 F. Supp. 1077, 1084 (D. Md. 1995). [12]. For cases supporting the use of statistic......