Shell v. Lautenschlager, Case No. 1:15CV1757
| Decision Date | 27 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15CV1757 |
| Parties | SUZANNE SHELL, Plaintiff, v. RAY R. LAUTENSCHLAGER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The pro se plaintiff Suzanne Shell filed suit in this court against pro se defendant Ray R. Lautenschlager, as well as against several parties who have since been dismissed. Shell's amended complaint alleged copyright infringement against the defendant concerning three works with copyrights registered and owned by Shell. (R. 15, Am. Compl.) Shell subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (R. 138), which the court granted in part, and denied in part. (R. 144.)
The matter was then set for trial. (R. 149.) At the pretrial conference, however, Shell waived her right to a jury trial, elected to pursue statutory damages on the claims on which she prevailed on summary judgment, and elected the minimum amount of the applicable statutory damages. (R. 151.) Shell declined to pursue the claims on which she did not prevail on summary judgment. Id. Defendant Lautenschlager objected on the record, and stated his desire to continue to a jury trial. Id. The court overruled his objection, and accepted Shell's election to proceed on briefs to the court. Id.
Shell has filed a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory damages, costs, and other relief, with supporting documentation. (R. 155.) Lautenschlager has filed a brief in opposition (R. 158), and Shell filed a reply brief (R. 159).
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Non-moving parties may rest neither upon the mere allegations of their pleadings nor upon general allegations that issues of fact may exist. See Bryant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 490 F.2d 1273, 1275 (6th Cir. 1974). The Sixth Circuit in Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989), points out that the movant has the initial burden of showing "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact" as to an essential element of the non-movant's case. This burden may be met by pointing out to the court that the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of his or her case. Street, 886 F.2d at 1479.
The respondent cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact, but must "present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment." Id. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the evidence, as well as any inferences to be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Kraus v. Sobel Corrugated Containers, Inc., 915 F.2d 227, 229 (6th Cir. 1990).
The standard is slightly different for a plaintiff-movant, who would bear the burden of proof at trial. Shell must present evidence that would entitle her to a directed verdict if that evidence were not controverted at trial. If the defendant responds to the motion with controverting evidence which demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact, Shell's motion must be denied. However, if, after analyzing the combined body of evidence presented by both parties, the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the defendant, then summary judgment will be entered on behalf of the plaintiff-movant. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). See also Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1359, 1368-1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir.1986) (); Orozco v. County of Yolo, 814 F.Supp. 885, 890 (E.D. Cal. 1993); McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 864 F.Supp. 466, 473 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citing National State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y., 979 F.2d 1579, 1582 (3d Cir. 1992)).
The court awarded summary judgment to Shell on the merits of severalcounts of her amended complaint. See generally R. 144. Shell declined to pursue her remaining claims, and waived her right to a jury trial, electing to pursue statutory damages on her prevailing claims, and electing the minimum amount of the applicable statutory damages. (R. 151.) As mentioned above, Lautenschlager objects to proceeding to a determination of damages and costs on briefs, and stated his desire to continue to a jury trial. (R. 151; see also R. 152.) Under these circumstances, there is no right to a jury trial on the question of the amount of statutory damages to be awarded for copyright infringement where the plaintiff only requests the statutory minimum. GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 892-893 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1130 (2006)); Sky Cable, LLC v. Coley, No. 5:11CV00048, 2013 WL 5963027, at *3 (W.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2013) (citing BMG Music); Simpleville Music v. Mizell, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1300 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citing cases). The court in BMG Music reasoned that, "[w]hen there is a material dispute of fact to be resolved or discretion to be exercised in selecting a financial award, then either side is entitled to a jury; if there is no material dispute and a rule of law eliminates discretion in selecting the remedy, then summary judgment is permissible." BMG Music, 430 F.3d at 892-893.
In her current motion for summary judgment, Shell seeks minimum statutory damages on the claims on which she prevailed in her earlier motion. (R. 155, PageID #: 1705; see generally R. 144.) Shell's complaint sought damages underthe following statutes: 17 U.S.C. § 504(c); 17 U.S.C. § 5121; and, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1202. (R. 15, PageID #: 201-202.) She also seeks costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. (R. 155, PageID #: 1705.)
The defendant's opposition to the current motion for summary judgment contests the court's earlier ruling on the merits, by stating, in part, "this was a falsely filed case and ... [Shell] is not the party whose original thought created the documents which she has claimed as her own." (R. 158, PageID #: 1831.) The court has already ruled on the merits of Shell's claims. The defendant's response to Shell's first motion for partial summary judgment (R. 138) was due on June 1, 2017, see, e.g., R. 143, PageID #: 1545, and Lautenschlager did not file a timely brief in opposition to that motion, thus the court ruled on the motion in the order dated October 31, 2017, referenced above. (R. 144.) At this late date, the court will not entertain objections to the rulings on the merits.
The amended complaint alleged three counts of copyright infringement. See generally R. 15, Am.Compl., PageID #: 186-192; see also R. 138, PageID #: 1406-1422. Summary judgment was granted on Count One as to willful copyright infringement. (R. 144, PageID #: 1557.) Summary judgment was granted onCounts Two and Three as to copyright infringement, but denied as to willfulness. (R. 144, PageID #: 1561-1562.) The relevant statutory provisions for damages for copyright infringement are contained in Section 504(c) which reads, in pertinent part:
17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Thus, for the three copyright infringement violations in Counts One, Two, and Three, minimum statutory damages in the amount of $2,250.00 will be awarded to Shell, pursuant to Section 504(c)(1).
The statute provides that, when the court finds that infringement was committed willfully, "the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000." 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Although the court granted judgment on Count One as willful copyright infringement (R. 144, PageID #: 1557), Shell has confirmed that she does not request that the court award discretionary damages for the willful infringement in Count One, thus the court will limit its award on Count One to the statutory minimum.
Count Four of the amended complaint alleged that Lautenschlager altered or removed copyright management information ("CMI") when publishing the copyrighted works, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1202. (R. 15, ¶¶ 138-153, PageID #: 192-195.) Judgment was granted on two of the sub-claims, but denied on the other two sub-claims. (R. 144, PageID #: 1571-1572; see also 1562-1569.)
Section 1202 pertains to the integrity of copyright management information. The remedy for the violation of this section is located at 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c), which provides for either actual damages, 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(1)(A), or statutory damages, 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(1)(B). Shell has elected statutory damages. Section 1203(c)(3) reads, in pertinent part:
17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3)(B). Summary judgment was granted on Count 4 for two violations...
To continue reading
Request your trial