Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. HRB Louisville LLC et al

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 2/5/2016, re 66 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will enter a separate order in accordance with this Opinion. cc: Counsel (RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
PLAINTIFF

HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTS, L.P.

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-00706-CRS

HRB LOUISVILLE LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. (“Humphreys”) brought suit alleging
copyright infringement against Defendants HRB Louisville LLC; HRB Louisville Member LLC;
Royal/Buck Company LLC, Buck SH Company, LLC, The John Buck Company, LLC, Buck
Development Louisville, LLC, Buck Development, LLC and TJBC, Inc.; Henneman
Engineering Inc.; and Royal Apartments USA, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”). Humphreys
now moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether it owns a valid copyright. For
the reasons below, the Court will grant Humphreys’ motion.
Background
This case involves alleged architectural copyright infringement arising from architectural
drawings and the subsequent construction of a student housing complex near the University of
Louisville. Humphreys prepared plans and drawings for the student housing complex for the
original developers. Humphreys later registered these designs (collectively, the “12101
Louisville Design”) with the United States Copyright Office.

1

In 2013, Defendant HRB Louisville LLC bought certain rights and assets in the project
from the original developers. Humphreys alleges that the 12101 Louisville Design was used
without its authorization as the basis for the student housing complex’s construction.
Standard
Before granting a motion for partial summary judgment, the Court must find that “there is
no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law” concerning the part of each claim identified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party moving for
summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of any issue of
material fact, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986), a burden which may only be
satisfied by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record...” or “showing that the materials
cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). In
resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
Discussion
To prove a copyright infringement claim, Humphreys must prove (1) it owned the
copyrighted creation and (2) that the Defendants copied original elements of Humphreys’ work.
See Martinez v. McGraw, 581 F. App’x 512, 514 (6th Cir. 2014); Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485,
490 (6th Cir. 2009). Humphreys has only moved for partial summary judgment on the first issue.
A plaintiff owns a valid copyright in a work if the plaintiff proves that the work is original and
that the plaintiff is the author or creator of the work. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); Feist Publications,
Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991).

2

“In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five
years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the
copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). “The filing of a certificate
of registration creates a rebuttable presumption of the validity of a copyright.” BancTraining
Video Sys. v. First Am. Corp., 956 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Although the
presumption is rebuttable, the party challenging the copyright carries this burden. Id.; Mid-S.
Inst. of Self Def. Shooting, Inc. v. Habermehl, 221 F.3d 1335 (6th Cir. 2000); Hi-Tech Video
Prods. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1095 (6th Cir. 1995).
Humphreys has submitted six copyright registrations from the United States Copyright
Office relating to the 12101 Louisville Design. See ECF Nos. 66-3 – 66-8. Humphreys has also
submitted seven copyright registrations related to prior works that Humphreys used as a source
for elements of the 12101 Louisville Design. See ECF Nos. 66-9 – 66-8; ECF Nos. 67-16 – 6718; ECF Nos. 69-1 – 69-2; ECF Nos. 69-9 – 69-10; ECF No. 70-1. Humphreys completed these
works in 2012, within five years of the Copyright Office issuing certificates of registration in
2014. Furthermore, as additional evidence of ownership, Humphreys provided affidavits
supporting the authorship and originality of the 12101 Louisville Design.
Defendants have not offered any evidence to rebut the presumption of a valid copyright
or even dispute the additional evidence of copyright ownership. Defendants argue that
Humphreys’ motion should be viewed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) motion to establish facts.
However, ownership of a valid copyright is an element of copyright infringement. The Court can
and will narrow the issues in the case. As a matter of law, Humphreys owns a valid copyright to
the 12101 Louisville Design.

3

Defendants further argue that a certification of registration is merely a presumption and is
rebuttable. This is correct as a matter of law. However, Defendants have not attempted to rebut
this presumption and Humphreys has provided evidence of copyright ownership beyond the
certificates of registration.
Defendants also argue that discovery is still ongoing and ruling on this motion would be
premature. When a party opposes summary judgment due to a need for additional discovery,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) requires the party to file an affidavit indicating its need for discovery and
an explanation of the relevant material sought and why the information has not been previously
discovered. See In re Aredia & Zometa Products Liab. Litig., 352 F. App’x 996, 998 (6th Cir.
2009); Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir. 2000). Defendants have not
filed any such affidavit.
Lastly, Defendants argue that Humphreys is seeking summary judgment on a matter not
in controversy: whether Humphreys owns a valid copyright for the works that were a source for
some elements of the 12101 Louisville Design. The Court, however, construes Humphreys’
motion for summary judgment to be limited to the issue of whether it owns a valid copyright to
the 12101 Louisville Design. Humphreys’ introduction of the additional certificates of
registration was to provide evidence that it owned the copyright to elements previously included
in other copyrighted designs and subsequently included in the Louisville Design.
The Court will grant Humphreys’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of
whether it holds a valid copyright for the 12101 Louisville Design.
The Court will enter a separate order in accordance with this opinion.

February 5, 2016

4

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc