Law Office of Richard L. Weiner : Legal Updates & News

Jury makes unanimous finding that Illegal duplicators of motion pictures engaged in willful copyright infringement – Judgment entered for $893,077.11

A copyright infringement action was adjudicated to final judgment by a Jury in the District Court for the Central District of California, before the Honorable Florence M. Cooper (Case no. 02-02293 FMC (Ex)), entitled New Form, Inc. v. Lucia Albarran et al. (the “District Court Action”). The District Court Action was filed by Plaintiff seeking damages for intentional and willful copyright infringement of ten Spanish-language feature films pursuant to the Federal Copyright Act. After two years of litigation, including extensive law and motion practice, the matter proceeded to Jury Trial. Richard L. Weiner was litigation and trial counsel for Plaintiff. A unanimous jury verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff on all counts of copyright infringement, with a specific finding that Defendants had willfully infringed the Plaintiff’s rights. The Jury awarded $75,000.00 of willful statutory damages per film, for all ten films, for a total of $750,000.00. The Final Judgment was entered in the District Court Action, awarding Plaintiff, among other relief, recovery as against Defendants, jointly and severally, its costs and of suit, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to TA \l "17 U.S.C. § 505" \s "17 U.S.C. § 505" \c 2 17 U.S.C. §505. Based on the Judgment awarding Willful Statutory Damages, Attorney fees and Costs, the total amount awarded in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, jointly and severally, was in the sum of $893,077.11, plus interest at the maximum legal rate, together with all post judgment attorney fees and costs.

Motion Picture Producer obtains AFMA Award Against Unscrupulous Sales Agent and is given back rights to all Films

Richard L. Weiner initiated on behalf of Producers a demand for binding contractual arbitration as required under three motion picture sales agency agreements under *AFMA International Arbitration Rules in the matter entitled, D&S Screenfund I, D&S Screenfund II and D&S Screenfund IV v. A Plus Entertainment, Inc., and Related Counter-Actions by A Plus, AFMA Case No. 01-80 (“AFMA Arbitration”). The Producers sought relief against the Sales Agent on claims for fraud in the inducement; declaratory relief; rescission and restitution; conversion; possession of personal property and for damages; in quantum meruit; trespass to personal property; and accounting. An Award was issued in connection with the AFMA Arbitration in favor of Plaintiff, finding that the Sales Agent made material misrepresentations of fact and had breached the sales agency agreements. All rights and interests in the films were deemed re-assigned to the Producers for all films and a permanent injunction was issued against the Sales Agent. An Order confirming the AFMA Award was entered in Los Angeles County, Superior Court Case no. BS 075 850. The Court Order held that the AFMA Award was confirmed in all respects, that judgment be entered in conformity with the AFMA Award, and that Petitioner recovers its costs of the action. Mr. Weiner further sought and obtained from AFMA on behalf of the Producers a “Bar” that prevented the Sales Agent from attending the American Film Market (“AFM”).
*The American Film Marketing Association (“AFMA”) has changed its name to the Independent Film & Television Alliance - I.F.T.A. [www.ifta-online.org]

On entry of the Judgment awarding Willful Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement of ten motion pictures, Attorney fees and Costs, in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, jointly and severally, Defendants filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of California (In Re Lucia Albarran And Antonio Barboza, Case No. 04-04938-PB7). Defendants had dodged, avoided and sought to delay the consequences that flow from stealing and pirating Plaintiff’s films for several years. This Bankruptcy was filed to further delay Plaintiff’s from seeking to recover the damages that flowed from the willful injury caused by Defendants.

Richard L. Weiner caused to be filed on behalf of the Judgment Creditor in the Bankruptcy Case an Adversary Complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 5 TA \s "11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)" 23(a)(2) and ( TA \s "11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6)" 6), for Exempt Claims from Discharge of Debts.

Once the adversary case was filed, Mr. Weiner filed several Motions, including Motions for Summary Adjudication and for Judgment.

We were seeking a determination of summary judgment on behalf of the Plaintiff against Defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 5 TA \s "11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)" 23(a)(2) and ( TA \s "11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6)" 6), for Exempt Claims from Discharge of Debts. We argued that requiring Plaintiff to proceed to a trial in the Bankruptcy Court was not necessary. A ruling granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first cause of action was appropriate and justified since the admissible evidence was undisputed that (1) Plaintiff had ownership of a valid copyright interest and the exclusive rights to distribute the Motion Pictures in the home video market in the United States; and (2) Defendants engaged in the willful, malicious and unauthorized duplication, copying, offering for sale and selling of the Motion Pictures in the United States within Plaintiff’s exclusive term.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled that Plaintiff established that there was no genuine issue as to any material facts regarding Debtors’ willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff’s Property Right that resulted in a debt owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. The Court ordered that under 11 U.S. TA \s "11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6)" C. §523(a)(6), Defendants were not entitled to a discharge as to the debt owed to Plaintiff and that Judgment for Non-Discharageability was entered in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendants.