Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER McINTOSH, CASE NO. CV F 07-1080 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR POST-VERDICT

FACTUAL FINDINGS 

vs. (Doc. 329.)

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES,

INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Northern California Universal Enterprises, Inc. (“NCUE”) seeks this Court’s “factual

determinations” on damages issues which NCUE claims the jury did not resolve with its verdict. 

Plaintiff Roger McIntosh (“Mr. McIntosh”) faults NUCE’s attempt to invade the jury’s provincewithout

guidance from the record to permit this Court to make determinations NUCE seeks. This Court

considered NCUE’s F.R.Civ.P. 49(a)(3) motion for post-verdict factual findings on the record and 1

VACATES the April 20, 2010 hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Forthe reasons discussed below,

this Court DENIES NCUE’s motion for post-verdict factual findings.

NCUE filed no reply papers.

1

1

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 6
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

BACKGROUND

Summary

This action arises from alleged infringing use of a tentative map and improvement plans to

develop 480 acres as a subdivision in the City of Wasco (“Wasco”). Mr. McIntosh, a Bakersfield civil

engineer, alleges that defendants NCUE, Lotus Developments, L.P. (“Lotus”), Dennis W. DeWalt, Inc.

(“DeWalt”) and Wasco “created a residential subdivision by copying and using McIntosh’s copyrighted

works and employing a tangible embodiment of the landscape design McIntosh conceived and created.”

This Court conducted a March 1-4 and 8-9, 2010 jury trial. The jury returned a March 10, 2010 verdict

favorable to Mr. McIntosh.

Jury Verdict

With its verdict, the jury found that:

1. NCUE, Lotus, DeWalt and Wasco (collectively “defendants”) copied Mr. McIntosh’s

tentative map and that only Wasco had copied Mr. McIntosh’s improvement plans;

2. NCUE, Lotus and Wasco profited directly from copying of either Mr. McIntosh’s

tentative map or improvement plans done by any of the other defendants;

3. NCUE, Lotus and Wasco failed to exercise their right and ability to supervise or control

the other defendants’ copying of Mr. McIntosh’s tentative map or improvement plans;

4. Mr. McIntosh is entitled to $1.4 million in damages;

5. NCUE and Lotus each profited $1,992,107.50 from their respective infringing activity; 

6. Wasco profited $1.5 million from its infringing activity; and

7. NCUE and Lots acted as partners or practically partners in committing infringing

activity.

The jury was instructed on an award of profits:

In addition to actual damages, the copyright owner is entitled to any profits of the

defendant attributable to the infringement. You may not include in an award of profits

any amount that you took into account in determining actual damages.

You may make an award of the defendant’s profits only if you find that the

plaintiff showed a causal relationship between the infringement and the profits

generated indirectly from the infringement.

The defendant’s profit is determined by subtracting all expenses from the

2

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 6
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

defendant’s gross revenue.

The defendant’s gross revenue is all of the defendant’s receipts from the use

or sale of a copyrighted work associated with the infringement. The plaintiff has the

burden of proving the defendant’s gross revenue by a preponderance of the evidence.

Expenses are all operating costs, overhead costs, and production costs incurred

in producing the defendant’s gross revenue. The defendant has the burden of proving the

defendant’s expenses by a preponderance of the evidence.

Unless you find that a portion of the profit from the use or sale of a

copyrighted work is attributable to factors other than use of the copyrighted work,

all of the profit is to be attributed to the infringement. The defendant has the

burden of proving the portion of the profit, if any, attributable to factors other than

infringing the copyrighted work. (Bold added.)

DISCUSSION

F.R.Civ.P. 49(a)(3) Motion Standards

NCUE contends that the verdict, agreed upon by the parties, lacks necessary findings on:

1. What portion of profits, if any, bore a casual relationship to infringement and is therefore

attributable to infringement;

2. What is the amount of actual damages for which each defendant is liable; and

3. Through which defendant’s actions was NCUE and Lotus found vicariously liable.

NCUE argues this Court must make such findings to permit entry of a “clear and unambiguous

judgment.”

Mr. McIntosh responds that NUCE seeks “to pry into the jury’s deliberation” and to permit this

Court to “rearrange the facts where the jury has already decided them” and to “question the profit now

decided by the jury.” Mr. McIntosh concludes that NCUE asks “this Court to renegotiate liability and

damages.”

F.R.Civ.P. 49(a)(3) provides:

A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the pleadings

or evidence but not submitted to the jury, unless before the jury retires, the party

demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court

may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have

made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict. (Bold added.)

When a jury is “specially instructed,” and an issue is omitted without objection, a finding is

deemed made in accord with a judgment on special verdict, “unless the court makes a finding to the

contrary.” Roberts v. Karimi, 251 F.3d 404, 407 (2 Cir. 2001) (italics in original). nd

3

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Apportionment Of Profit

NCUE asks this Court to apportion profits to a “casual relationship to infringement.” NCUE

points out that the profits jury instruction advised the jury that Mr. McIntosh is “entitled to profits . . .

attributable to the infringement” and that a profits award is permitted only upon a showing of “a causal

relationship between the infringement and the profits generated indirectly from the infringement.” 

NCUE argues that findings that NCUE and Lotus each profited $1,992,107.50 from their respective

infringing activity lacks “causation or allocation.” NCUE claims that the verdict lacks “a finding

regarding a casual relationship between profit and infringement” and that whether the jury attributed all

profit to infringement is unknown. 

“In cases such as this where an infringer's profits are not entirely due to the infringement, and

the evidence suggests some division which may rationally be used as a springboard it is the duty of the

court to make some apportionment.” Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F.2d 119, 121 (2 Cir. 1962), nd

cert. denied, 371 U.S. 817, 83 S.Ct. 31 (1962).

To apportion profit attributable in infringement, NCUE directs this Court to Lotus’ summary

analysis of profit/loss (Exhibit D-217), the profit calculation of Mr. McIntosh’s expert Dr. Merati

(Exhibit P-112), Mr. McIntosh’s costs (Exhibit D-250) and DeWalt’s contract with NCUE for surveying

and tentative map preparation (Exhibit J-18).

This Court disagrees that the verdict lacks findings as to a causal relationship between

infringement and profits. The verdict asked whether, and the jury found that:

1. Defendants copied Mr. McIntosh’s tentative map (infringement);

2. NCUE, Lotus and Wasco profited directly from copying of either Mr. McIntosh’s

tentative map or improvement plans done by any of the other defendants (causation);

3. NCUE, Lotus and Wasco failed to exercise their right and ability to supervise or control

the other defendants’ copying of Mr. McIntosh’s tentative map or improvement plans

(infringement); and

4. NCUE and Lotus each profited $1,992,107.50 from their respective infringing activity

(causation).

At a minimum, the jury’s findings give rise to inferences of a causal relationship between infringement

4

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 4 of 6
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

and profits.

Turning to apportionment of profits, NCUE points to several exhibits but fails to articulate an

apportionment of profits or how the exhibits assist to provide such an apportionment. Mr. McIntosh 2

correctly notes that NCUE “points to nothing in the record that would allow this Court to make such a

determination.” The verdict reflects that the jury accepted Dr. Merati’s $3,984,214.83 profits figure and

attributed 50 percent of such profits each to NCUE and Lotus. The jury made an apportionment, and

NCUE points to no authority to permit this Court to replace an apportionment inconsistent with that of

the jury. 

Actual Damages

NCUE seeks this Court’s apportionment among defendants of the $1.4 million damages award. 

NCUE argues that since the jury found that only Wasco copied Mr. McIntosh’s improvement plans, the

verdict does not differentiate “between actual damages resulting from infringement of the map and actual

damages resulting from infringement of the plans.”

Mr. McIntosh responds that identity of whom “was proportionately responsible for the full

amount” is “irrelevant since all parties are jointly and severally liable” for Mr. McIntosh’s actual

damages and apportionment is “an indemnification argument.”

“When a copyright is infringed, all infringers are jointly and severally liable for plaintiffs' actual

damages, but each defendant is severally liable for his or its own illegal profit; one defendant is not

liable for the profit made byanother.” Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505,

519 (9 Cir. 1985) (citing MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1981)). th

Given the defendants’ joint and several liability, NCUE fails to substantiate the need to apportion

actual damages among defendants. Moreover, NCUE provides this Court no guidance as to an

apportionment. This Court is not in a position to review the extensive record to find a needle in the hay

stack which NUCE is either unwilling or unable to attempt to find. NCUE leaves it to the Court to

figure out actual damages without NCUE’ citation to meaningful evidence or legal authority. An

indemnity action is the proper remedy and means to seek that which NCUE seeks herein.

This Court’s March 26, 2010 order to require fully supported and explained post-trial motions was

2

prompted in part by defense counsel’s substance-free attempt to support his motion.

5

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 5 of 6
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

Vicarious Liability

The jury found that NCUE and Lotus profited directly from copying Mr. McIntosh’s tentative

map or improvement plans done by any of the other defendants and that NCUE and Lotus failed to

exercise their right and ability to supervise or control the other defendants’ copying of Mr. McIntosh’s

tentative map or improvement plans. NCUE notes the absence of finding as to whether NCUE and

Lotus failed to supervise and control DeWalt, Wacso or both. NCUE explains that if NCUE and Lotus

failed to supervise and control DeWalt, theyare “vicariously liable for infringement of the map.” NCUE

further explains that if NCUE and Lotus failed to supervise and control Wasco, they are “vicariously

liable for infringement of the map and plans.” (Underlining in original.) 

NCUE fails to explain the need to make such distinction given defendants’ joint and several

liability for actual damages. In sum, defendants are subject to joint and several liability for the $1.4

million damages award. Again, an indemnity action is the forum to address the matter.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES NCUE’s motion for post-verdict factual

findings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 359 Filed 04/14/10 Page 6 of 6