Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. CTR Hotel Partners, LLC et al
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 41 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment as to Christopher B. Shultz. The Court FURTHER ORDERS an evidentiary hearing on issues of damages set for 7/29/2013 01:30 PM in Martinsburg District Judge Courtroom, 2nd Floor before District Judge Gina M. Groh. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 6/5/2013. (cmd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-59
(JUDGE GROH)
CTR HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a
QUALITY HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER;
RONALD E. MARCUS,
Defendants,
and
BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-37
(JUDGE GROH)
CHRISTOPHER B. SHULTZ,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO
CHRISTOPHER B. SHULTZ
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of
Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), et al.’s Motion for Default Judgment against
Christopher B. Shultz [Doc. 41], filed on May 9, 2013. For the reasons that follow, the
Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
1
I. Factual Background
This is an action for copyright infringement arising from Defendants’ public
performance, or Defendants causing the public performance, of copyrighted musical
compositions at the Quality Hotel & Conference Center located at 4328 William L.
Wilson, FWY, Harpers Ferry, WV, 25425. Plaintiffs filed this action against Christopher
B. Shultz on March 22, 2013, alleging copyright infringements under Title 17 of the
United States Code. A summary of the alleged violations are set forth in Exhibit 1,
“Song Schedule,” attached to the Complaint. Plaintiffs maintain four claims of willful
copyright infringement, based upon “Defendant’s unauthorized public performance of
music compositions from the BMI repertoire.” [Doc. 1], p.4. Defendant Shultz, in his
individual capacity, was personally served the summons and a copy of Plaintiffs’
Complaint at Shultz Realty, 1101 S. George St., Charles Town, WV 25414 on April 3,
2013. To this date, Defendant Shultz has not filed a response or otherwise appeared to
defend against Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
On April 30, 2013, Plaintiffs requested the Clerk enter default pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). On May 1, 2013, at Plaintiffs’ request, the Clerk entered
default as to Christopher B. Shultz. On May 9, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for entry of
default judgment against Defendant Shultz pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(b).
II. Applicable Law
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals encourage dispositions of claims on their merits, trial judges have discretion to
2
enter default judgments. Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 authorizes the entry of a default judgment “when a
defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend in accordance with the Rules.” United
States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 1982). The Clerk of the Court’s “entry of
default” pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides notice
to the defaulting party prior to the entry of default judgment by the court. Carbon Fuel
Co. v. USX Corp., No. 97-1995, 1998 WL 480809, at *2 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 1998). After
the entry of default, the non-defaulting party may move the court for “default judgment”
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). Id.
Under Rule 55(b)(1), “[i]f the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that
can be made certain by computation, the clerk–on the plaintiff’s request, with an
affidavit showing the amount due–must enter judgment for that amount and costs
against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P.
55(b)(1). However, as in this case, when the sum is not certain, default can only be
made by the Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2).
Upon default, all of the well-pleaded facts alleged in the Complaint, as to liability,
are deemed admitted, but the amount of damages are not. Ryan v. Homecoming Fin.
Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(c) limits the court’s discretion in entering default judgment: “[a] default judgment
must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(c).
3
III. Analysis
The Court must analyze three separate issues. First, whether Defendant Shultz
was properly served. Second, whether Plaintiffs have proved copyright infringement by
an unauthorized public performance. Last, if Plaintiffs prove Defendant Shultz’s liability,
whether Plaintiffs’ requested damages are a sum certain sufficient for this Court to
award damages without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
A. Proper Service
Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against Christopher B. Shultz, in his individual
capacity. Defendant Shultz was personally served on April 3, 2013 at Shultz Realty,
1101 S. George St., Charles Town, WV 25414. [Doc. 7]. Therefore, Defendant Shultz,
as an individual, was served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(e)(2)(A), which provides that an individual may be served in a judicial district by
“delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally.”
B. Liability
Multiple district courts within the Fourth Circuit have noted that for a plaintiff to
prove copyright infringement by an unauthorized public performance, the plaintiff must
make sufficient allegations regarding:
(1) the originality and authorship of the works involved; (2) compliance
with the formalities of federal copyright law; (3) rightful proprietorship of
the copyrights at issue; (4) the copyrighted works were performed publicly
for profit; [and] (5) a lack of authorization by the owner or the owner’s
representative for the alleged infringer to publicly perform the works.
M.L.E. Music v. Kimble, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 2d. 469, 472 (S.D.W. Va. 2000). See also
EMI April Music, Inc. v. Garland Enters., LLC, Civil Action No. DKC 11-3352, 2012
4
WL 1986529 (D. Md. June 1, 2012), EMI April Music, Inc. v. White, 618 F. Supp. 2d
497, 504 (E.D. Va. 2009).
In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to establish the elements of
liability for purposes of default judgment. First, Plaintiffs have alleged that the four
songs at issue are original compositions created and written by specified persons.
Compl. ¶¶ 4-11, Ex. 1. Second, Plaintiffs have alleged the date of registration and
registration numbers of the four musical compositions and that the Plaintiffs have
“complied in all respects with the requirements of the Copyright Act.” Compl. ¶ 19, Ex.
1. Third, Plaintiffs owned the copyrights to the protected works at the time of
infringement. Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. 1. Last, Defendant Shultz publicly played these songs
and/or caused these songs to be publicly performed without a license or permission.
Compl. ¶ 21, Ex. 1. Therefore, these factual allegations are sufficient to satisfy the five
elements of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of default judgment.
C. Damages
If the court determines that liability is established, then it must determine the
appropriate amount of damages. Unlike allegations of fact, “[e]ven when a default
judgment is warranted based on a party’s failure to defend, the allegations in the
complaint with respect to the amount of the damages are not deemed true.” See Credit
Lyonnais Secs. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999). The court
must make an independent determination regarding such allegations by, for example,
conducting an evidentiary hearing or referring the matter to a magistrate judge to
conduct such a hearing. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2)(B).
5
In this case, the Court FINDS that a sum certain sufficient to award damages on
the default judgment does not exist. Accordingly, this Court will conduct an evidentiary
hearing on damages on July 29, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in the District Judge Courtroom
in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. [Doc. 41]. The Court FURTHER
ORDERS an evidentiary hearing on the issues of damages on July 29, 2013 at 1:30
p.m.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record
and/or pro se parties herein.
DATED: June 5, 2013
6
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?