MORGAN v. HAWTHORNE HOMES, INC, et al
Filing
227
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 186 Third MOTION in Limine as to Implied License filed by RANDY MORGAN, denying 187 Fourth MOTION in Limine as to Evidence Less Than Clear and Convincing filed by RANDY MORGAN. Signed by Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher on 6/3/2011. (sjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RANDY L. MORGAN T/AIDIBIA
CONCEPTS RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWTHORNE HOMES, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 04-1809
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff s Motion in Limine as to Implied License (Doc.
186), Plaintiff's Motion in Limine as to Evidence that is Less Than Clear and Convincing (Doc.
187), and Defendant's brief in opposition thereto (Doc. 215). For the reasons stated below, we
will deny both motions.
As to the motion in limine as to evidence that is less than clear and convincing, Plaintiff
Morgan argues that the Defendant Hawthorne Homes ("Hawthorne") has not clearly expressed
the terms of the implied license it claims as a defense. This Court has already denied
Hawthorne's motion for summary judgment on this issue (Doc. 172), ruling that whether
Hawthorne obtained an implied license must be determined by the jury because there are
disputed issues of material fact. For the same reason, we will deny Plaintiffs motion in limine.
The scope and existence of any implied license is a defense that Hawthorne may present at trial.
With respect to the motion in limine as to implied license, Plaintiff contends that the
Court should exclude any evidence that Seven Fields asked him to create the drawings that are
the subject of this action. He claims, without providing any support, that this evidence is
irrelevant and potentially confusing to the jury. We disagree. The existence of an implied
nonexclusive license depends on whether Seven Fields asked Morgan to produce the drawings,
whether Morgan complied, whether Morgan intended that Seven Fields distribute his drawings,
and whether Morgan waived the requirement of the express permission provision in the license
agreement. See MacLean Assocs., Inc. v. Wm. M Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen, Inc., 952 F.2d
769, 779 (3d Cir. 1991); Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558-59 (9th Cir. 1990).
Likewise, whether Morgan knew about the transfer of the drawings from Seven Fields to
Hawthorne (and whether he failed to object) is relevant to whether Hawthorne obtained an
implied nonexclusive license from Seven Fields. This Court has already ruled that there are
disputed issues of material fact on this point (Doc. 172). The jury will have to determine
whether any implied nonexclusive license existed and whether it was transferred to Hawthorne
from Seven Fields. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny both motions.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Date:
~ \3{ t(
D. Michael Fisher,
United States Circuit Judge
cc:
Counsel of record
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RANDY L. MORGAN T/AJD/B/A
CONCEPTS RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWTHORNE HOMES, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 04-1809
ORDER
AND NOW, to-wit, this 3rd day of June, 2011, for the reasons stated in the accompanying
opinion filed contemporaneously hereto, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
THAT:
1).
Plaintiffs Motion in Limine as to Implied License (Doc. 186) is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine as to Evidence That is Less Than Clear and
2).
Convincing (Doc. 187) is hereby DENIED.
r<)
.............. ,
~~~'F,,~
D. Michael Fisher
United States Circuit Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?