`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
`
`Civil Action No. 09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS
`
`HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TERRY TRUMBLE and
`JANELLE TRUMBLE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`THIS MATTER is before me on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
`
`and Memorandum of Law in Support [ECF No. 64], filed May 12, 2010. Plaintiff seeks
`
`summary judgment (1) that it owns a valid copyright in an architectural work registered
`
`as HDS-2802; (2) on the issue of actual damages; and (3) on the Defendants’
`
`affirmative defenses. Defendants filed a response on June 7, 2010 [ECF No. 104] and
`
`Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion on July 27, 2010 [ECF No. 104]. For the
`
`reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part
`
`and denied in part.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Home Design Services, Inc. filed this action on April 27, 2009 alleging
`
`that Defendants Terry and Janelle Trumble violated the Copyright Act by designing and
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
`
`constructing a home allegedly copied from Home Design’s registered architectural
`
`plan–known as the “2802" plan. The Trumbles assert that they did not infringe upon
`
`Home Design’s copyright and that their home was not copied from any source.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) summary judgment is warranted
`
`when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
`
`show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed .2d 202 (1986); Ross v. The
`
`Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, 599 F.3d 1114, 1116 (10th Cir.
`
`2010). A disputed fact is “material” if under the relevant substantive law it is essential to
`
`proper disposition of the claim. Wright v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32
`
`(10th Cir. 2001). Only disputes over material facts can create a genuine issue for trial
`
`and preclude summary judgment. Faustin v. City & County of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192,
`
`1198 (10th Cir. 2005). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a
`
`reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119
`
`F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997).
`
`When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must “view the
`
`evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
`
`party opposing summary judgment.” Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of
`
`Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). In order to rebut a
`
`motion for summary judgment, an opposing party must present evidence permitted by
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
`
`Rule 56 setting forth specific facts that would be admissible at trial. Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`56(e)(2); Adams v. Am. Guarantee and Liab. Ins. Co., 233 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir.
`
`2000).
`
`III.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Ownership of a Valid Copyright
`
`There are two elements to a copyright infringement claim: “(1) ownership of a
`
`valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”
`
`Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113
`
`L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both elements. Palladium
`
`Music, Inc. v. EatSleepMusic, Inc., 398 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005).
`
`Home Design asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on the first
`
`element–that it owns a valid copyright in the 2802 architectural work. “To show
`
`ownership of a valid copyright and thus satisfy the first prong under Feist, a plaintiff
`
`must prove that the work as a whole is original and that the plaintiff complied with
`
`applicable statutory formalities.” CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc.,
`
`97 F.3d 1504, 1513 (1st Cir. 1996); see also 4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01.
`
`Although a timely obtained certificate of registration ordinarily constitutes prima facie
`
`evidence of the validity of a copyright, here, it is undisputed that Home Design did not
`
`acquire its copyright registration until more than five years after publication. As such,
`
`Home Design’s registration is not entitled to a presumption of validity. 17 U.S.C. §
`
`410(c)(“In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within
`
`five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
`
`validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight
`
`to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the
`
`discretion of the court.”).
`
`Both parties have submitted numerous facts that go to the originality of the work
`
`at issue in this case as well as the issue of compliance with statutory formalities. Even
`
`if Home Design was entitled to a statutory presumption of validity based on its
`
`registration, which it is not, I would be reluctant to grant summary judgment that Home
`
`Design has a valid copyright. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
`
`Trumbles, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the originality of the work
`
`at issue. Accordingly, Home Design’s motion for summary judgment that it owns a valid
`
`copyright is denied.
`
`B.
`
`Actual Damages
`
`Home Design next argues for summary judgment on the issue of actual
`
`damages. I agree with the Trumbles, however, that it is premature to rule on the issue
`
`of damages before Home Design has prevailed on the issue of liability. Even though a
`
`successful plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, as well as profits that are attributable
`
`to infringement, see 17 U.S.C. 504(b), here, Home Design has not demonstrated that it
`
`is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Indeed Home Design has not
`
`even moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. As such, I decline to
`
`address the issue of damages at this point in the case.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses
`
`Home Design has also moved for summary judgment on several of the Trumbles’
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
`
`affirmative defenses, including their second affirmative defense (failure to mitigate
`
`damages), the third affirmative defense (statute of limitations), the seventh affirmative
`
`defense (publication and construction prior to December 1, 1990), the ninth affirmative
`
`defense (originality), the tenth and sixteenth affirmative defenses (public domain), the
`
`twelfth affirmative defense (failure to give proper copyright notice), the thirteenth,
`
`twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth affirmative defenses (innocent infringement), the
`
`fourteenth affirmative defense (copyright abuse or misuse); the seventeenth (lack of
`
`copyrightable material), the twentieth affirmative defense (first sale doctrine), and the
`
`twenty-ninth affirmative defense (invalid copyright registration).
`
` As an initial matter, I disagree with the proposition that summary judgment is
`
`appropriate on several of the Trumbles’ defenses simply because those defenses are
`
`more appropriately styled as denials. See Lifeblood Biomedical, Inc., Opt-In Trust v.
`
`Mann (In re Sender), 423 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1163 (D. Colo. 2006) (“A defense should
`
`not be stricken if there is any real doubt about its validity, and the benefit of any doubt
`
`should be given to the pleader.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Given that
`
`a cautious pleader will often label an argument as an affirmative defense, there is no
`
`reason to strike such a denial where the other side is not prejudiced by any redundancy.
`
`Id. As such, I decline to strike, or grant summary judgment, as to any of the Trumbles’
`
`affirmative defenses on the ground that the defense is more appropriately a denial of
`
`Plaintiff’s claim.
`
`Nevertheless, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Trumbles, I
`
`find that summary judgment is appropriate on two of their affirmative defenses.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
`
`First, I find there is no question of fact or law that might allow the Trumbles’
`
`failure to mitigate damages defense to succeed, and the defense is therefore insufficient
`
`as a matter of law. With respect to their failure to mitigate defense, the Trumbles argue
`
`that Home Design’s owner personally investigated alleged infringement in the general
`
`geographic area of their allegedly infringing home, but that Home Design then failed to
`
`“take any preemptive steps to give written notice to any notice builders, designers,
`
`drafters, realtors, etc. of the self described ‘epidemic’ [of copyright infringement] to
`
`prevent further infringement.” But the Trumbles offer no authority showing that Home
`
`Design was required to take such preemptive steps. Even if Home Design was aware
`
`of possible infringements of its copyrights in the same geographic area as the Trumbles,
`
`Home Design had no duty to preemptively warn individuals like the Trumbles not to
`
`violate copyright law. Accordingly, summary judgement is granted in favor of Home
`
`Design on Defendants’ second affirmative defense of failure to mitigate.
`
`Second, I find that summary judgment is appropriate on the Trumbles’ third
`
`affirmative defense–the statute of limitations defense. The statute of limitations for
`
`copyright infringement is three years. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (“No civil action shall be
`
`maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years
`
`after the claim accrued.”). “A cause of action for copyright infringement under section
`
`507(b) of the Copyright Act accrues ‘when one has knowledge of a violation or is
`
`chargeable with such knowledge.’ ” Fisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 37
`
`F.Supp.2d 1213, 1216 (D.Colo.1999) (quoting Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19
`
`F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir.1994)); see also Home Design Services, Inc. v. B & B Custom
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
`
`Homes, LLC, 509 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 (D.Colo. 2007) (“[W]hen a statute of limitations is
`
`silent on the matter a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of
`
`the existence and cause of the injury which is the basis of his action.”).
`
`Here, Home Design alleges that the Trumbles infringed Home Design’s copyright
`
`by “designing, and constructing one or more residences which were copied largely or
`
`were exact duplicates” of Home Design’s copyrighted architectural plans. Pl.’s Compl. ¶
`
`11. It is undisputed that the Trumbles did not receive a building permit to begin
`
`construction of their home until June 23, 2006 and that construction was not complete
`
`until sometime in February 2007. (Trumble Deposition 70:8 - 71:8). Home Design’s
`
`claim, therefore, could not have accrued prior to June 23, 2006, at the earliest.
`
`Assuming that its claim began to accrue on that date (which seems unlikely given that
`
`construction may not have even began on that date) and assuming that the Home
`
`Design had reason to know of the infringement on that date, the statute of limitations
`
`ran out three years later, on June 23, 2009. Because Home Design filed this lawsuit on
`
`April 28, 2009, there is no possibility that its claim has been extinguished by the statute
`
`of limitations, which expired two months later, at the very earliest. Accordingly, Home
`
`Design’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to the Trumbles’ third affirmative
`
`defense.
`
`I find that the Trumbles’ remaining affirmative defenses survive summary
`
`judgment. Drawing all inferences in favor of the Trumbles, there are genuine issues of
`
`material fact regarding the remaining defenses challenged by Home Design, and
`
`accordingly, Home Design’s motion for summary judgment with respect to such
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:09-cv-00964-WYD-CBS Document 185 Filed 03/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
`
`defenses is denied.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based upon the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Defendants’
`
`second and third affirmative defenses is GRANTED. It is
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED
`
`in all other respects.
`
`Dated: March 8, 2011
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
`Wiley Y. Daniel
`U. S. District Judge
`
`-8-