Montalvo et al v. EMI et al
Filing
208
OPINION AND ORDER: Denying 202 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi (AS) Modified on 12/9/2014 document type and to add text (su).
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
4
FREDDY MONTALVO et al.,
5
Plaintiffs
6
v.
7
LT’s BENJAMIN RECORDS, INC. et al.,
8
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 12-1568 (GAG)
9
OPINION AND ORDER
10
Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s dismissal
11
of Counts IV and V (contributory and vicarious copyright infringement) of their third amended
12
complaint. (See Docket No. 202.) The court previously granted in part and denied in part
13
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 186, which included the dismissal of said claims.
14
(See Docket No. 201.)
15
Plaintiffs argue that, taking the complaint’s allegations as a whole, they sufficiently
16
pleaded a claim for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement because the complaint
17
alleges that a third party, Machete Music, sold some of Plaintiffs’ compositions, thus leading to the
18
inference that Defendants licensed to and knew that Machete was distributing the compositions.
19
(Docket No. 202 at 4-5.)
20
attempting to include a new factual allegations couched as an inference and thus this argument
21
must be disregarded. (Docket No. 207 at 5-6.) Upon considering the parties’ submissions and the
22
pertinent law, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration at Docket No. 202.
23
24
25
26
Defendants respond that by arguing such, Plaintiffs are merely
Civil No. 12-1568 (GAG)
1
I.
Standard of Review
2
A motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to re-litigate matters already
3
litigated and decided by the court. Villanueva-Mendez v. Vazquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 320, 322
4
(D.P.R. 2005). It is also a long-standing rule that motions for reconsideration cannot be used to
5
bring forth new arguments. See Nat’l Metal Finishing Co., Inc. v. Barclays Am./Commercial, Inc.,
6
899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that motions for reconsideration may not be used “to
7
repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should
8
have been raised earlier”). These motions are entertained by courts if they seek to correct manifest
9
errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in
10
11
law. See Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass. Indus. Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1994).
A. Contributory Copyright Infringement
12
A defendant can be found contributorily liable for copyright infringement, if he, “with
13
knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing
14
conduct of another.” Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159,
15
1162 (2d Cir. 1971). “The Supreme Court has stated that contributory liability ‘may be predicated
16
on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts. . . .’ Metro-Goldwyn-
17
Mayer Studios, Inc., v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 942, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781
18
(2005). Although the defendant must have knowledge of the infringing activity, ‘the defendant
19
need only have known of the direct infringer’s activities, and need not have reached the legal
20
conclusion that those activities infringed a copyrighted work.” Jalbert v. Grautski, 554 F. Supp. 2d
21
57, 68 (D. Mass. 2008).
22
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, an examination of the third amended complaint in its
23
entirety reveals that Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants actively encouraged or induced third
24
25
26
2
Civil No. 12-1568 (GAG)
1
parties, namely Machete Music, to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Although they now claim
2
that an inference can be made that Defendants knew about Machete’s infringing actions merely
3
because Machete distributed some of the subject compositions, without any allegations that
4
Defendants knew about and indeed induced or actively encouraged Machete’s actions, the court
5
cannot simply infer this necessary elements of this claim. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiffs’
6
attempt to advance an argument that should have been alleged in one of its many amendments of
7
the complaint. See Marks 3 Zet-Ernst Marks GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 15-16
8
(1st Cir. 2006) (“A motion for reconsideration ‘does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its
9
own procedural failures and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or
10
advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the
11
judgment.’”).
12
B. Vicarious Copyright Infringement
13
Plaintiffs’ argument regarding its vicarious copyright infringement claim requires little
14
discussion. Plaintiffs simply argue, without any legal support, that they need not show that
15
Defendants had control over Machete to sufficiently allege vicarious liability; rather, they need
16
only show that Defendants had “direction” over Machete and have done so in light of the fact that
17
Machete had licenses to manufacture and distribute some of the compositions. (Docket No. 202 at
18
5.) “[T]o find a defendant vicariously liable for another’s copyright infringement, the [c]ourt must
19
find that the defendant had (1) the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and (2) a
20
direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials.” Jalbert, 554 F. Supp. 2d at
21
67-68. The mere fact that Machete had a license to distribute some of the compositions does not
22
show the court in any way how Defendants had the right and ability to supervise Machete’s
23
24
25
26
3
Civil No. 12-1568 (GAG)
1
infringing activity. As such, Plaintiffs fail to persuade the court that it erred when it dismissed this
2
claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration at Docket No. 202.
4
SO ORDERED.
5
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 9th day of December, 2014.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
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?