Case 2:19-cv-00957-APG-NJK Document 91 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`Plaintiff
`
`KATHRYN ROSS-NASH,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SUNNI ALMOND,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`Case No.: 2:19-cv-00957-APG-NJK
`
`Order Granting Motion for Statutory
`Damages and Denying Motions to Certify
`Judgment and for Attorneys’ Fees
`
`[ECF Nos. 70, 71, 72]
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Kathryn Ross-Nash sues defendant Sunni Almond for copyright infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Almond counterclaims for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic
`
`advantage, intentional interference with contractual relationships, and intentional infliction of
`
`emotional distress. Ross-Nash previously moved for summary judgment on the counterclaims
`
`and her copyright infringement claim. I granted her motion for summary judgment as to
`
`copyright infringement and denied it as to the counterclaims. Consequently, the claims that
`
`remain for trial are Almond’s counterclaims and Ross-Nash’s contributory copyright
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`infringement claim.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Ross-Nash now moves for statutory damages on the copyright infringement claim,
`
`certification of the judgment as to that claim, and for attorney’s fees. The parties are familiar
`
`with the facts, so I do not repeat them here except where relevant. I grant Ross-Nash’s motion
`
`for statutory damages and deny the other motions.
`
`I. Motion for Statutory Damages
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ross-Nash argues that she is entitled to $15,000 in statutory damages because it is the
`
`22
`
`23
`
`midpoint of the statutory range and infringing conduct should be deterred. Almond opposes,
`
`arguing that she has a right to a trial on the proper amount. Alternatively, Almond argues that
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00957-APG-NJK Document 91 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`the minimum amount of statutory damages, $750, is proper. ECF No. 78 at 8. Ross-Nash replies
`
`that she “will accept the minimum amount of $750.” ECF No. 82 at 4.
`
`3
`
`
`
`“[T]here is no right to a jury trial on damages in copyright cases when only the minimum
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`statutory damages are awarded.” GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
`
`BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 892-93 (7th Cir. 2005)). This amount appears
`
`appropriate for the minimal copying by Almond, and the parties have agreed to the minimum
`
`statutory damages of $750. 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c)(1) (“the copyright owner may elect . . . to
`
`recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all
`
`infringements involved in the action . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as
`
`the court considers just.”). Setting the amount to the minimum moots Almond’s request for a
`
`jury trial. I therefore grant Ross-Nash’s motion and award statutory damages in the amount of
`
`12
`
`$750 on Ross-Nash’s copyright infringement claim.
`
`13
`
`II. Motion to Certify Judgment
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ross-Nash next argues that she is entitled to certification of the judgment against Almond
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`because the copyright infringement claim is separate from the other pending claims. Almond
`
`contends that certification is inappropriate because it would create a risk of piecemeal appeals
`
`and conflicting damages awards and requests for attorneys’ fees and costs. Almond further
`
`argues that the equities favor her, and certification would hinder her ability to fully litigate her
`
`19
`
`counterclaims because of her precarious financial position.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “[w]hen an action presents more than one
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`claim for relief . . . , the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
`
`than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
`
`delay.” I must “evaluate the ‘interrelationship of the claims’ and determine in the first instance
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00957-APG-NJK Document 91 Filed 08/03/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`‘whether the claims under review [are] separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated.’”
`
`Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 905 F.3d 565, 576 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Curtiss-
`
`Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 10 (1980)). In this analysis, I “must take into
`
`account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.” Id. (quoting Curtiss-
`
`Wright, 446 U.S. at 8). “Plainly, sound judicial administration does not require that Rule 54(b)
`
`requests be granted routinely.” Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 10.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Certification of the judgment is not warranted. The copyright infringement claim is
`
`8
`
`9
`
`interrelated to the contributory infringement claim and the counterclaims. There is no “seriously
`
`important reason” that merits the risk of piecemeal appeals regarding much of the same facts.
`
`10
`
`Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 882 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, I deny Ross-Nash’s
`
`11
`
`motion.
`
`12
`
`III. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ross-Nash’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is premature. I therefore deny it
`
`14
`
`without prejudice.
`
`15
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`16
`
`I THEREFORE ORDER that Plaintiff Kathryn Ross-Nash’s motion for statutory
`
`17
`
`damages (ECF No. 70) is granted. I award damages in the amount of $750.
`
`18
`
`I FURTHER ORDER that Ross-Nash’s motions to certify judgment and for attorneys’
`
`19
`
`fees and costs (ECF Nos. 71 and 72) are denied.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED this 3rd day of August, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDREW P. GORDON
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`