Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino,

a French Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Beseder, Inc., (dba Rima Fine Art), an

Arizona corporation, Dror Darel and Tracy

L. Penwell, husband and wife; JeanEmmanuel Renoir, an Individual,

Defendants. 

and Related Actions

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-1310-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay a Determination on

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt.#662) filed by Defendants Beseder, Inc., Dror

Darel, Tracy Penwell and Jean-Emmanuel Renoir (“Defendants”). After reviewing the

motion and accompanying papers, the Court issues the following Order.

Defendants move to stay the determination regarding attorneys’ fees until the Court

first inquires with the Register of Copyrights whether the Register of Copyrights would have

refused to copyright the works at issue if it had known of inaccurate information regarding

the first date of publication contained in the copyright application pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

411(2009). The full text of this provision is as follows:

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 670 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

(b)(1) A certificate of registration satisfies the

requirements of this section and section 412, regardless of

whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information,

unless--

(A) the inaccurate information was included on

the application for copyright registration with

knowledge that it was inaccurate; and 

(B) the inaccuracy of the information, if known,

would have caused the Register of Copyrights to

refuse registration. 

(2) In any case in which inaccurate information described

under paragraph (1) is alleged, the court shall request the

Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the

inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the

Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.

Id. 

However, the Court has already determined, on several occasions, that the copyrights

at issue are valid. This premise was the basis for the Court’s ruling on summary judgment,

the jury’s verdict, and the Ninth Circuit’s published decision in Societe Civile Succession

Guino v. Renoir, 549 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2008). At this point, it would serve no purpose to

ask the Register of Copyrights whether it would have refused registration had it known a

more complete version of the facts. As far as the law of this case is concerned, these

copyrights are valid. United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining

that “a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the

same court, or a higher court, in the same case”); Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v.

Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining

that prior determinations of infringements in copyright litigation are the law of the case). 

Defendants argue that they are not seeking to invalidate the copyright as a whole, but

merely desire the Court to make the above inquiry before determining attorneys’ fees;

however, the Court is unwilling to waste the Register’s time with a question whose answer,

even if negative, would not invalidate the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the copyright at issue

is indeed valid. Moreover, if the Register were to say that the it would indeed have refused

registration, there would be an irreconcilable inconsistency between the substance of the case

(where there was a valid copyright) and the award of attorneys’ fees (where there was no

valid copyright). See United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 670 Filed 08/13/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

that “in order to maintain consistency during the course of a single lawsuit, reconsideration

of legal questions previously decided should be avoided”) (citing United States v. Houser,

804 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Moreover, applying subsection (b)(2) would appear to be an impermissive retroactive

application of the statute. The summary judgment against Defendants was granted (after

reconsideration) on January 30, 2006. The jury rendered its damages verdict in November

2006. The parties then elected to appeal various aspects of the case. The Court could have

awarded attorneys fees in 2006; however, it chose to postpone this determination until after

the potential appeals were exhausted. Defendants concede that the subsection at issue was

not enacted until late 2008, yet they point to no evidence that Congress intended this

subsection to have retroactive application. (Dkt.#662 at 5) Ninth Circuit precedent states

that the “presumption against retroactivity applies unless Congress’ intent to the contrary is

clear.” Scott v. Boos, 215 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay is denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay a Determination

on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt.#662).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any response by any party who previously has

not filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees shall be filed within ten days

of this order.

DATED this 12th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 670 Filed 08/13/09 Page 3 of 3