Miley v. Stone ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 27, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
02-31096
TRUETT MILEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GRAHAM STONE; SHARON STONE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(98-CV-882)
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
This is a suit for damages for copyright infringement. After
a five day bench trial the district court granted Judgment on
Partial Findings in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
We affirm.
FACTS
Plaintiff-Appellant Truett Miley (“Miley”) built his home in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana based on plans drawn by an architect, Mark
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Montgomery (“Montgomery”), from sketches furnished by Miley. Some
years later, Graham and Sharon Stone (“the Stones”) began
construction of their home on the same street as and near to
Miley’s. The plans for the Stone home were drawn by Louis Ravasio
(“Ravasio”) to whom the Stones furnished sketches, photos and
clippings of various elements they wished incorporated into their
home. Neither the Stones nor Ravasio ever examined the plan for
Miley’s home, and Ravasio never viewed the interior of it, although
Sharon Stone did see its first-floor interior while under
construction.
Apparently concluding that the Stones were copying his home,
Miley took the following steps during the late stages of the
construction of the Stone home: Miley and Montgomery executed an
assignment by which Montgomery assigned to Miley all copyright
rights and privileges in and to the plans. Several months later
Montgomery assigned to Miley all copyright rights in and to the
house itself. Several days later Miley brought this suit. The
bench trial lasted five days during which the court heard testimony
from the parties, Montgomery, Ravasio and architectural experts.
The court compared scaled drawings of the two houses and personally
toured and compared both houses. When Miley rested his case the
Stones moved for Judgment on Partial Findings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52
(c). The district court granted the motion.
We assume without deciding that Miley does indeed own an
enforceable copyright. The district court held, among other
2
things, that the Stone home was not substantially similar to the
Miley home. “Substantial similarity” is what is required to prove
copyright infringement in the context of this case. Bridgmon v.
Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 576 (5th Cir. 2003). This is a
determination “typically...left to the fact-finder.” Id. at 577.
We have carefully examined the record and considered the argument
and briefs of counsel and find no clear error in that
determination. See Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 632
(5th Cir.) (applying clear error standard to findings made pursuant
to a Rule 52(c) judgment), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 825 (2001);
Computer Mgmt. Assistance Co. v. Robert F. DeCastro, Inc., 220 F.3d
396, 399 (5th Cir. 2000) (applying clear error standard to factual
findings in infringement case). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3