Keeling v. New Rock Theater Productions, LLC et al

Filing 152

OPINION re: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 139 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Jaime Keeling, 143 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Ethan Garber. Before the court are two motions for reconsideration of the court's resolution of Garbe r's post-trial motion. First, Keeling moves for reconsideration of the order granting a new trial on the issue of Garber's liability after his attempts to stop the infringement. Second, Garber moves for reconsideration of the court's d enial of his motion for a new trial on the amount of New Rock's profits. Both motions are denied. This opinion resolves the motions listed as document numbers 141 and 143 in this case. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/19/2013) (ama)

::

:;;-

:----,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAIME KEELING,
Plaintiff,

v.

10 Civ. 9345

NEW ROCK THEATER PRODUCTIONS,
LLC, EVE HARS, and ETHAN GARBER,

OPINION

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jaime Keeling brings this copyright action against defendants Eve
Hars, Ethan Garber, and their company, New Rock Theater Productions, LLC.
The work at issue is a theater production called Point Break LWEI
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found in Keeling's favor, concluding that
• Keeling is the sole-owner of Point Break LIVE!;
• Point Break LIVE! was a parody that made fair use of the film Point Break;
• All three defendants infringed Keeling's copyright (though not willfully);
• Keeling suffered $50,000 in actual damages; and
• Defendants' profits over five years of infringing activity totaled $200,000.
Judgment was entered in the amount of $250,000, representing Keeling's
actual damages and all profit earned from the infringing activity.
Defendant Garber then moved for a new trial. The court denied the motion,
in part, finding that the jury's calculation of profits was not egregious and did
not shock the conscience, so a new trial on that issue was not warranted. But
the court granted a new trial on the limited issue of whether Garber
maintained his control over New Rock beyond the moment when he tried
1

unsuccessfully to stop the infringement because he is only liable if he
controlled the company.
Before the court are two motions for reconsideration of the court's
resolution of Garber's post-trial motion. First, Keeling moves for
reconsideration of the order granting a new trial on the issue of Garber's
liability after his attempts to stop the infringement. Second, Garber moves for
reconsideration of the court's denial of his motion for a new trial on the amount
of New Rock's profits.
Both motions are denied.
This opinion resolves the motions listed as document numbers 141 and
143 in this case.

So ordered.
Dated: New York, New York
December 19, 2013
Thomas P. Griesa
United States District Judge

2