Saavedra v. Editorial Cultural, Inc., CIVIL NO.: 15-2436 (MEL)
| Decision Date | 08 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO.: 15-2436 (MEL) |
| Parties | BEATRIZ LAGUERRE SAAVEDRA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. EDITORIAL CULTURAL, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the court is Defendant Editorial Cultural, Inc.'s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). ECF No. 180. In the pending motion, Defendant argues that judgment as a matter of law should be granted because Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the owners of the right to publish Roberto Ramos Perea's theatrical adaptations of the novels La llamarada and La resaca by Enrique Laguerre. Id. at 2. Beatriz Laguerre Saavedra, Beatriz Alexia Álvarez Laguerre, Rafael Enrique Álvarez Laguerre, Gabriel Ortiz Laguerre, Fabián Antonio Charrón Álvarez, and Carla Victoria Charrón Álvarez (Plaintiffs) subsequently filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 181.
On October 5, 2015, Beatriz Laguerre Saavedra, Mr. Laguerre's daughter, and Mr. Ramos Perea, author of the theatrical adaptations of the novels La llamarda and La resaca, filed a complaint against Defendant. ECF No. 1. The third cause of action alleged copyright infringement of the theatrical adaptation of La llamarada. Id. at 4. Ms. Laguerre Saavedra and Mr. Ramos Perea pled that the right to publish the theatrical adaptation of La llamarada belonged to Mr. Ramos Perea. Id.
On November 25, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join indispensable parties, namely Mr. Laguerre's grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. ECF No. 9. On March 30, 2016, Ms. Laguerre Saavedra and Mr. Ramos Perea requested leave to file an amended complaint joining Mr. Laguerre's grandchildren and greatgrandchildren as plaintiffs. ECF No. 20. The court granted leave to amend the complaint and denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 23.
On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs requested leave to amend the complaint to add an allegation of copyright infringement of the theatrical adaptation of La resaca to the third cause of action. ECF No. 35. The court granted leave to amend the complaint on September 15, 2016. ECF No. 38. The second amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2016. ECF No. 65. In the third cause of action, the Plaintiffs pled that the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca belonged to Mr. Ramos Perea. Id. at 5.
On September 30, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which it argued that Mr. Ramos Perea did not own the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca. ECF No. 42. On September 30, 2017, U.S. District Judge Pedro Delgado granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, articulating, inter alia, the following reasoning:
[Defendant] Cultural presses for summary judgment by challenging Ramos-Perea's copyright claim over the adaptations of La Llamarada and La Resaca. Ramos-Perea, in turn, contends that in 2013, Cultural offered for sale 10,000 copies of his theatrical adaptation of La Llamarada and 10,000 copies of La Resaca, without his authorization. If Ramos-Perea had any right over printouts of adaptations, he would prevail in case of infringement. But the agreements1 authorizing him to prepare theatrical adaptations for stage performance grant him rights over the theatrical representations, not the right to authorize printouts of the adaptations, which corresponds to Laguerre. That being so, it was up to Laguerre, not Ramos-Perea, to authorize the sale of the theatrical adaptations.2
ECF No. 84, at 7 (internal citations omitted).
On November 22, 2017, the case was referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings. ECF No. 88. On March 21, 2018, a pretrial and settlement conference was held, in which the court granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the third cause of action to allege that neither Mr. Laguerre nor his heirs authorized Defendant's printing and sale of the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca. ECF No. 124. During said pretrial conference, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant raised the possibility that the contracts between Mr. Laguerre and Producciones Teatro Caribeño, Inc. (Teatro Caribeño) could have been null and void ab initio. ECF Nos. 86; 124. On April 2, 2018, the third amended complaint was filed. ECF No. 111.
A jury trial was held on February 4-6, 2019. ECF Nos. 175-177. At the close of Plaintiffs' case, Defendants made a Rule 50(a) motion, which the court held in abeyance. On February 6, 2019, the jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiffs were the owners of the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca, and awarding damages in the amount of $266,350. ECF No. 179.
Pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial, an opposing party may file a motion for judgment as a matter of law at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. González-Bermúdez v. Abbott Labs. PR Inc., 349 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.P.R. 2018). Rule 50(b) provides that if the court does not grant the motion, a party may renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Id. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may allow judgment on the verdict, order a new trial, or direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Id.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be granted only when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Negron v. Rivera, 433 F. Supp. 2d 204, 212 (D.P.R. 2006). "Courts may only grant a judgment contravening a jury's determination when the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict adverse to that party." Id. (quoting Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr. P'ship, 415 F.3d 162, 168 (1st Cir. 2005)). In evaluating the evidence, the court "may not assess the credibility of witnesses, evaluate the weight of the evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony, but must view all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Id. (quoting Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 1992)).
Before addressing Defendant's arguments in favor of judgment as a matter of law, the court must address an assumption that underlies the jury's verdict: that Mr. Ramos Perea transferred the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca to Mr. Laguerre.
The parties have stipulated that the theatrical adaptations of La resaca and La llamarada are derivative works of the original novels. ECF No. 124, at 1. The parties have also stipulated that the original novels La resaca and La llamarada were in the public domain at the time that the theatrical adaptations were published. Where a work has gone into the public domain, any individual is free to use the work in new way, such as, for example, making a derivative work. Warner Bros. Entm't v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584, 596 (8th Cir. 2011). A derivative work may be copyrighted, but the right to protection belongs to the creator of the derivative work. Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning LLC, 386 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2004). Copyright ownership may be transferred, but such a transfer is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note ormemorandum, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or the owner's duly authorized agent. 17 U.S.C. § 204.
It is undisputed that the creator of the theatrical adaptations of La resaca and La llamarada was Mr. Ramos Perea. The written contract between Mr. Laguerre and Teatro Caribeño concerning the theatrical adaptation of La llamarada does not clarify whether there is any relationship between Teatro Caribeño and Mr. Ramos Perea, and no evidence to that effect was presented at trial. Trial Exhibit 6. The contract states that Mr. Laguerre "authorizes . . . [Mr. Ramos Perea] to prepare the adaptation . . . of the novel 'LA LLAMARADA.'" Id. at 2. It goes on to state that Mr. Ramos Perea "will conserve the moral rights of the adaptation authorized by [Mr. Laguerre] for the revival that [Teatro Caribeño] makes, without he nor [Mr. Ramos Perea] authorizing any impression whatsoever of his adaptation, which right will correspond entirely and exclusively to [Mr. Laguerre]." Id. The written contract between Mr. Laguerre and Teatro Caribeño concerning the theatrical adaptation of La resaca contains similar language to that of the contract concerning the theatrical adaptation of La llamarada. Trial Exhibit 7. The court did not preclude Defendant from arguing at trial that these contracts were null and void ab initio on grounds that they provided that Mr. Laguerre reserved the right to publish the theatrical adaptations, a right that did not belong to him in the first place because at the time the contracts were executed, the novels on which the theatrical adaptations were based were in the public domain and the author of the theatrical adaptations was Mr. Ramos Perea.3 ECF No. 156. At trial, however, Defendant did not argue, and the verdict does not provide for a finding, that the contracts between Mr. Laguerre and Teatro Caribeño were null and void ab initio.4 Id. Such a findingwould have been inconsistent with the jury's determination that Plaintiffs were the owners of the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca. Thus, the jury must have construed the contracts as transferring the right to publish the theatrical adaptations of La llamarada and La resaca from Mr. Ramos Perea to Mr. Laguerre, rather than from Mr. Laguerre to Teatro Caribeño and Mr. Ramos Perea, despite some clauses that suggest a contrary reading of the same. Neither at trial nor in its written motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial