Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODGERS v. EIGHTY FOUR LUMBER CO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 3, 1985

DOROTHY RODGERS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
EIGHTY FOUR LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant; JONICO MUSIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EIGHTY FOUR LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant; HARRISON MUSIC CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EIGHTY FOUR LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

MEMORANDUM ORDER

 In these related copyright infringement actions, the court has granted summary judgment on the issue of liability for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Strike the Jury Demand. We now consider the issue of whether or not the defendant is entitled to a jury trial on damages where copyright owners seek only an injunction and statutory damages.

 Defendant has submitted a brief in support of its right to a jury trial on the issue of damages, citing Gnossos Music v. Mitken, Inc., 653 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1981) for the proposition that the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides it with the right. Defendant argues that the Copyright Act provides a remedy of a type which would traditionally have been enforced at law and therefore the Seventh Amendment right applies. Moreover, defendant points to the necessary determination of willfulness as a factual issue traditionally within the province of the jury.

 Plaintiffs argue that defendant is not entitled to trial by jury on the issue of statutory damages as a matter of law, citing Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983); Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Frith, 645 F.2d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1981); Sid and Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1977); Monogram Models, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp., 492 F.2d 1281 (6th Cir. 1974); Chappell and Co., v. Palermo Cafe Co., 249 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1957). Plaintiffs do not challenge defendant's right to a jury trial on the issues of actual damages or profits under the statute. Rather they urge a statutory construction interpreting the act's statutory damages to be equitable in nature and therefore not within the Seventh Amendment purview.

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether there is a right to a jury trial in a copyright infringement case in which the only issue left to be decided is that of statutory damages. The parties have cited six circuit court decisions, only one of which has concluded that a right to a jury trial exists in such cases. We believe that the majority view finding that no right to a jury trial exists is the better view, and therefore we will adopt it for the reasons discussed herein.

 The Copyright Act does not itself specifically provide the right to a jury trial. Therefore if the right exists it is derived from the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which preserves the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. The United States Supreme Court has left no doubt that the Seventh Amendment may be applicable to new causes of action based on statutes. See, Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 477, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44, 82 S. Ct. 894 (1962) (trademark laws); Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 193, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260, 94 S. Ct. 1005 (1974) (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act). Whether this right exists should be decided as a matter of statutory construction rather than constitutional interpretation whenever possible. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 577, 55 L. Ed. 2d 40, 98 S. Ct. 866 (1978). Furthermore, application of the Seventh Amendment depends on the nature of the issues to be tried rather than the character of the overall action. *fn1" Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729, 90 S. Ct. 733 (1970). In considering the test set forth by the Court in Ross v. Bernhard,2 we believe that the inquiry here centers on whether the remedy sought is legal or equitable in nature.

 The Court in BMI, Inc. v. Papa John's, Inc. 201 U.S.P.Q. 302, 305 (N.D. Ind. 1979) addressed this inquiry:

 

. . . these statutory damages were provided by Congress to create a remedy where actual damages are not provable at law, but yet where it is proven that a violation of the copyright occurred. In this sense at least, Congress has simply authorized by statute what equity courts have long done as a matter of course, i.e. not to suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. In codifying this remedy, Congress did not remove it from the equitable jurisdiction of the courts, instead they simply provided guidelines to be used by the courts in the exercise of their discretion.

 We agree, and find the statutory damages provided by the 1976 Copyright Act to be equitable in nature.

 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Strike defendant's Jury Demand is GRANTED. Trial on damages shall proceed non-jury as previously scheduled on Monday, December 9, 1985, at 9 a.m.

 SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1985.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.