Richmond Homes Mgmt v. Raintree Inc ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    RICHMOND HOMES MANAGEMENT,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    No. 96-1035
    RAINTREE, INCORPORATED; JARED L.
    LAKE; SUNSET INVESTMENTS,
    INCORPORATED,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
    James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (CA-93-47-C)
    Submitted: September 17, 1996
    Decided: December 10, 1996
    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    George H. Dygert, DYGERT & HEMENWAY, Charlottesville, Vir-
    ginia, for Appellants. Thomas O. Bondurant, Jr., BONDURANT &
    BENSON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Raintree, Inc., Sunset Investments, Inc., and Jared L. Lake (collec-
    tively "Raintree"), appeal from the district court's judgment following
    remand by this court1 recalculating the damages award to Richmond
    Homes Management, Inc. ("RHMI"), based on the finding that Rain-
    tree infringed the copyright on an architectural design owned by
    RHMI (the "Louisa copyright").2 In our prior opinion, we found that
    with the exception of the district court's original inclusion of damages
    resulting from the infringement of the copyright we determined was
    not owned by RHMI (the "Heritage copyright"), the district court's
    calculation of damages in this case was sound. We also held that the
    Heritage and Louisa copyrights could not be merged as derivative cre-
    ations of the same owner. Finally, we held that on remand, damages
    were to be determined based only on the thirteen homes that infringed
    on the Louisa copyright.
    On remand, the district court recalculated the damages award to
    exclude any alleged damage resulting from the Heritage copyright.
    On appeal, Raintree claims that the district court clearly erred because
    it failed to reduce the damage award on remand based on the deriva-
    tive influence of the non-owned copyright.
    We find the district court's recalculation of damages on remand to
    be consistent with the prior opinion of this court. Accordingly, we
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 See Richmond Homes Management, Inc. v. Raintree, Inc., No. 94-
    2214(L) (4th Cir. Sept. 18, 1995) (unpublished).
    2 This court reversed and remanded in part the district court's original
    finding that Raintree infringed the copyrights on two architectural
    designs, concluding that RHMI failed to prove that it owned one of the
    copyrights at issue. Id. The relevant facts are set forth fully in this court's
    prior opinion and will not be repeated here.
    2
    affirm the district court's order, and specifically, its imposition of
    joint and several liability on behalf of RHMI in the amount of
    $199,848 for infringement of RHMI's Louisa copyright. We deny
    Raintree's motions for expedited review, and for attorneys' fees pur-
    suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
    als before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
    cess.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1035

Filed Date: 12/10/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014