United States District Court Eastern District of New York

United States District Court Eastern District of New York

Case 1:13-cv-05612-FB-RLM Document 189-1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 5697 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------- x JONATHAN COHEN, SANDRA FABARA, : STEPHEN EBERT, LUIS LAMBOY, ESTEBAN : DEL VALLE, RODRIGO HENTER DE REZENDE, : Index No. 13-cv-05612 (FB) (RLM) DANIELLE MASTRION, WILLIAM : TRAMONTOZZI, JR., THOMAS LUCERO, AKIKO : MIYAKAMI, CHRISTIAN CORTES, DUSTIN : Hon. Frederic Block SPAGNOLA, ALICE MIZRACHI, CARLOS GAME, : JAMES ROCCO, STEVEN LEW, FRANCISCO : DEFENDANTS’ FED. R. CIV. P. FERNANDEZ, and NICHOLAI KHAN, : 52 AND 59 MEMORANDUM IN : SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET Plaintiffs, : ASIDE FINDINGS OF FACT : AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW : -against- AND FOR A NEW TRIAL, OR : ALTERNATIVELY, TO : VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN G & M REALTY L.P., 22-50 JACKSON AVENUE : OWNERS, L.P., 22-52 JACKSON AVENUE, LLC, ACD PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR AND : ENTER JUDGMENT FOR CITIVIEW BUILDINGS, LLC and GERALD : WOLKOFF, DEFENDANTS, OR : ALTERNATIVELY, : Defendants. FOR REMITTITUR -------------------------------------------------------------------- x : MARIA CASTILLO, JAMES COCHRAN, : LUIS GOMEZ, BIENBENIDO GUERRA, : Index No. 15-cv-03230 (FB) (RLM) RICHARD MILLER, KAI NIEDERHAUSEN, : CARLO NIEVA, RODNEY RODRIGUEZ, and : KENJI TAKABAYASHI, : : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : : : G & M REALTY L.P., 22-50 JACKSON AVENUE : OWNERS, L.P., 22-52 JACKSON AVENUE, LLC, ACD : CITIVIEW BUILDINGS, LLC and GERALD : WOLKOFF, : : Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------- X 572701_1/03726-0002 Case 1:13-cv-05612-FB-RLM Document 189-1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 5698 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW.......... ........................................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................................... 3 POINT I The Court Applied a Standard of “Recognized Stature” That Was Incorrect as a Matter of Law ........................................................................................... 4 POINT II The Court’s Finding That 45 of the Works Had Achieved Recognized Stature Is Clearly Erroneous and Against the Clear Weight of the Evidence ............................................. 11 A. The 37 works Denominated by this Court as “The Long-Standing Works” .............................................................................................. 12 B. The 12 Works Denominated by this Court as “The Other Works” ............................................................................................................. 23 POINT III The Court Clearly Erred on the Law and Finding of Willfulness ............................................... 25 POINT IV The Court’s Factual Findings on the Statutory Damages Factors Were Clearly Erroneous, and Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion ............................................ 31 POINT V The Court Should Remit the Statutory Damages Award ............................................................. 34 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 35 i 572701_1/03726-0002 Case 1:13-cv-05612-FB-RLM Document 189-1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 5699 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Atlantic States Legal Found v. Karg Bros., 841 F. Supp. 51 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) ................................................................................................................... 3 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903) ............................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 23 Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin Combs Publishing, Inc., 507 F. 3d 470 (6th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................................ 35 Bryant v. Media Right Prods., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................................... 26, 31 Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. 861 F. Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................................... 6, 23 Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P., 988 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)...................................................................................... 26, 27, 29, 30 Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P., Case No. 13-CV-05612 (FB)(RLM), 15-CV-03230 (FB)(RLM), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22662 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2018) ................................................................... passim Connors v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2001). ............................................................................................................................. 3 Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................................... 27 Dweck Law Firm, LLP v. Mann, 03 Civ. 8967 (SAS), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19601 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) ...................................... 34 FTC v. Chapman, 714 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................................................... 34 Graper v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 756 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................................... 26 Marshall v. Marshall, 08 CV 1420 (LB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45700 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012) .......................................... 27 Martin v. City of Indianapolis, 192 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 1999), aff’g, 982 F. Supp. 625 (S.D. Ind. 1997). ............................................... 7, 8 ii 572701_1/03726-0002 Case 1:13-cv-05612-FB-RLM Document 189-1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 5700 Network Enters. v. APBA Offshore Prods., 01 Civ. 11765 (CSH), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67564 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2006), aff’d, 264 Fed. Appx. 36 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................... 3 NFL v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 131 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). ......................................................................................................... 35 Pollara v. Seymour, 344 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................................ 8 Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) .................................................................................................................................... 26, 27 Scott v. Dixon, 309 F. Supp. 2d 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)................................................................................................. 7, 9, 11 Shu-Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 742 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................................... 34, 35 St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919). .......................................................................................................................................... 35 United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) ............................................................................................................................. 3 Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, 795 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 26 Statutes and Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(5) ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) .................................................................................................................................... 1, 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B) ................................................................................................................................ 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, 17 U.S.C. § 106A ............................................................................ passim iii 572701_1/03726-0002 Case 1:13-cv-05612-FB-RLM Document 189-1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 5701 Other Authorities Christopher J. Robinson, The “Recognized Stature” Standard in The Visual Artists Rights Act, 68 Fordham L.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    41 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us