Randles Films, LLC v. Quantum Releasing, LLC , 551 F. App'x 370 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDLES FILMS, LLC, a California Nos. 11-57161; 12-55722
limited liability company,
D.C. No. 2:10-CV-03909-SJO-SS
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
QUANTUM RELEASING, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company,
Defendant,
and
ECHO BRIDGE ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC, a California limited liability
company,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Echo Bridge Entertainment (“EBE”) appeals from the entry of judgment
against it after a bench trial in the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err when it awarded $350,000 in actual damages to
Randles Films based on Donald Randles’ unrebutted testimony that the film
Torture Room’s market value of $350,000 was reduced to zero because of EBE’s
infringement. Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505,
512 (9th Cir. 1985).
Assuming without deciding that the district court awarded damages based on
losses to Randles Films’ worldwide distribution rights, the damages award was not
in error. Although damages caused by foreign acts of infringement are not
recoverable, the Copyright Act’s extraterritoriality limitation does not bar recovery
for losses that are caused entirely by domestic acts of infringement. Subafilms,
Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc)
(“infringing actions that take place entirely outside the United States are not
actionable.”) (emphasis added); see also Los Angeles News Service v. Reuters TV
International, 340 F.3d 926, 931–32 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the territoriality
limitation and its exception in terms of foreign acts of infringement). It is
2
undisputed that EBE’s infringement occurred wholly within the United States, thus
Randles Films is entitled to recover all damages caused by that infringement. See
Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2004)
(reaffirming that damages analysis for copyright infringement is akin to tort
principles of causation and damages.”). The district court likewise did not err
when it accepted testimony supporting Randles Films and rejected testimony
supporting EBE in its causation analysis. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51
F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 1995).
Finally, EBE’s challenge to the district court’s attorneys’ fees award is
without merit. The award was not barred by 17 U.S.C. § 412 because the
screenplays upon which the film Torture Room was based were registered at the
time of infringement. Infringement of the derivative film constituted infringement
of the screenplays. Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 1979). The
district court therefore acted within its discretion when it awarded fees to Randles
Films as the prevailing party. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
AFFIRMED.
3