Sater Design Collections Inc, The v. Wingard Properties Inc et al

Filing 165

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 159 Report is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff's 129 motion for summary ju dgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED with respect to the Second, Third and Thirteenth Defenses raised by defendants Wingard Properties, Inc., James T. Wingard, and Deborah Wingard in their 93 answer to the plaintiff's s econd amended complaint. More specifically, summary judgment is GRANTED on the issues of whether the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action upon which relief may be granted; whether its claims are barred by the applicable statute of lim itations, applicable statute of repose, or the doctrine of laches; and whether its claims are barred by the defense of copyright misuse. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to all other issues. The plaintiff's 128 m otion for final default judgment against defendant The Lowrey Group, Inc. is also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. More specifically, this Court enters final default judgment against The Lowrey Group on the issue of liability but denies the plain tiff's request for the entry of specific damages against The Lowrey Group at this stage of the litigation. Finally, the 127 motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants Deborah Wingard and James T. Wingard is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 5/4/2011. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
The Sater Design Collection, Inc.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Wingard Properties, Inc.; James T.
)
Wingard; Deborah Wingard; The
)
Lowrey Group, Inc.; and Robert C.
)
Lowrey,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:08-cv-4101-TLW-SVH

ORDER
On December 22, 2008, the plaintiff, The Sater Design Collection, Inc. (“plaintiff”), filed this
civil action, alleging the defendants infringed several of its copyrighted architectural works. (Doc.
#1). The plaintiff filed amended complaints on June 11, 2009, (Doc. # 34) and February 19, 2010,
(Doc. # 92). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC.
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #
159). On February 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. # 129) and for final
default judgment against defendant The Lowrey Group, Inc. (Doc. # 128) be granted in part and
denied in part. (Doc. # 159). The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the motion for summary

1

judgment filed by defendants Deborah Wingard and James T. Wingard (Doc. # 127) be denied.
(Doc. # 159). The parties filed no objections to the Report. Objections were due on March 17, 2011.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It
is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 159). For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #
129) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED with respect to the Second, Third
and Thirteenth Defenses raised by defendants Wingard Properties, Inc., James T. Wingard, and
Deborah Wingard in their answer to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. # 93). More
specifically, summary judgment is GRANTED on the issues of whether the plaintiff has sufficiently
stated a cause of action upon which relief may be granted; whether its claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, applicable statute of repose, or the doctrine of laches; and whether
its claims are barred by the defense of copyright misuse. The plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment is DENIED as to all other issues. The plaintiff’s motion for final default judgment against
defendant The Lowrey Group, Inc. (Doc. # 128) is also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
More specifically, this Court enters final default judgment against The Lowery Group on the issue
of liability but denies the plaintiff’s request for the entry of specific damages against The Lowery
2

Group at this stage of the litigation. Finally, the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants
Deborah Wingard and James T. Wingard (Doc. # 127) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
May 4, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

3