N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HAR A C UR T IS; C YNTHIA ALDRIC H; ALFR E D C URR IER ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. ILLUM INATION AR TS, INC .; ILLUM INATION AR TS PUB LISHING, L.L.C .; JOHN M . THOM PSON; KIM M IE LYNN THOM PSON,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 14-35686

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00991-JLR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2017 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , IKUTA, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Pla intiffs C ha

ra C urtis, C ynthia

Aldric h, a

nd Alfre d C urrie r a

re the a u thor
and illustra

tors of thre e c hildre n’ s books. The y sue d De fe nda

nts— two publishing 

# FIL ED
MAR 16 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).e ntitie s a

n d two individua

ls involve d with those

e ntitie s— for c opy

right infringe m e nt a

nd bre a c h of c ontra c t a fte r De fe nda nts a lle ge dly

stoppe d pa

y i ng roy a ltie s but c ontinue d to se ll Pla intiffs’ books without pe rm i ssion. De fe nda

nts
a ppe a l from

the fina l judgm e nt a ga inst the m , a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by e nte ring a de fa ult judgm e nt a ga inst De fe n da nts. Dire c TV, Inc . v. Hoa Huy nh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th C ir. 2007). The c ourt a ppropria te ly a p plie d the fa c tors ide ntifie d in Eite l v. M c C ool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). The c ourt doc um e nte d De fe nda nts’ num e rous disc ove ry

viola tions a nd de la y s tha t took pla c e ove r m any
m onths. Thec ourt issue d se ve ra l wa rnings a nd le sse r sa

nc tions tha

t we re ine ffe c tive in c a

u s ing De fe nda

nts to c om

ply with de a dline s a

nd c ourt orde rs. Fina lly , the c ourt he ld a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring be fore e nte ring a de fa ult judgm e nt. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in fa iling to c onstrue De fe nda nt John Thom pson’ s pro se de c la

ra tions a s re q

ue sts to withdra

w De fe nda

nts’ a dm i ssion a s to R e que s t for Adm ission #41, pursua n t to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 36(b),
and in fa iling to order tha t the a dm ission be withdra wn. The pro se filings a

t issue
are n ot re a sona

bly inte rpre te d to a sk for withdra wa l of a ny a dm issions. No pa

rty
c ite d R ule 36 in thedistric t c ourt. M ore ove r, e ve n if we c onstrue d the filings a s R ule 36(b) m otions, withdra wa l of a n a dm ission is perm issive , not m andatory , a nd
2we re vie w the de nia l of suc h a m otion only for a b use of disc re tion. C onlon v. Unite d State s, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th C ir. 2007). And finally , be c a use a ll infringe m e nt-re lat e d fa c ts we re de e m e d a d m itte d be c a

use of the de fa

ult, De re k Andre w, Inc . v. Poof Appa re l C orp., 528 F.3d 696, 702 (9th C ir. 2008); Te le Vide o Sy s., Inc . v. He ide ntha l , 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th C ir. 1987) (pe r c uriam ), withdra wa l of the a dm i ssions would not m a ke any diffe re nc e to the outc o m e . 3. B e c a use Pla intiffs’ a lle ga tions of willful infringe m e nt a re de e m e d true on
a c c ount of the de fa

ult, the distric t c ourt prope rly found tha t the infringe m e nt wa s willful. W e find no a

buse of disc re tion in the

c ourt’ s a ward of sta

tutory dam a ge s. Se e B M G M usic v. Pe re z , 952 F.2d 318, 320 (9th C ir. 1991) (de sc ribing " ‘ wide disc re tion’ in se tting theam ount of da m a ge s within the

sta t utory range ," re vie we d for an a buse of disc re tion (quoting Ha rris v. Em us R e c ords C orp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th C ir. 1984)); Ha rris, 734 F.2d a

t 1335 (" T he award will be ove rturne d only for a buse of disc re tion." ). The c ourt a warde d only

one -third of the a llowa

ble
m a xim um , a nd a n a ward of sta

tutory dam a ge s is m e ant to se rve both c o m pe nsatory
and punitive

purpose s . L.A. Ne ws Se rv. v. R e u te rs Te le vision Int’ l , Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th C ir. 1998). 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding De fe n da nt Kim m ie Thom

pson individua lly

lia ble for c opy

right infringe m e nt. As note d, upon e n try of de fa ult, the
3a lle ga tions of thec om pla int we re de e m e d true . And the c om pla int a c c use d a ll De fe nda nts of dire c tly c o ntinuing to publish, sell, a nd distribute

the books e ve n
a fte r Pla intiffs te rm inate d the publishing a g re e m e nt. Those fa c ts m a ke he r lia ble for dam a g e s unde r the C opy right Ac t , 17 U.S.C . § 501(a ). 5. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in a pply ing the a lte r e go doc trine to hold De fe nda

nt John Thom

pson individua

l ly lia ble to Pla intiffs on the ir bre a c h of
c ontra c t c la im . Se e Towe Antique Ford Found. v. IR S, 999 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th C ir. 1993) (holding tha

t we re vie w a

pplic a tion of thea lte r e go doc trine for c le ar
e rror). Unde r W a shington la w, " [f] irst, the c orporate form m ust be inte ntiona lly
use d to viola te or e va de a

duty ; se c ond, disre ga

rd m ust be ne c e ssa

ry an d re q uire d to pre ve nt unjustifie d loss to the injure d pa

rty ." M e ise l v. M & N M ode rn Hy d ra ulic Pre ss C o., 645 P.2d 689, 692 (W a sh. 1982) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). " Inte ntiona l m isc onduc t m ust be the c a

u se of the ha

rm tha t is a voide d by disre ga rd." Id. at 693. First, the c ourt c ite d undispute d

fa c ts de m onstra

ting tha t John Thom

pson use d c orporate a sse ts to pa y for obviously

pe rsona l e xpe n s e s, suc h
a s groc e ry

bills, sa lon se rvic e s, pe t se rvic e s, a nd de nta l work, a

nd tha t he fre e ly transfe rre d m one y

be twe e n pe rsona l a

nd c o m p any a c c ounts. Se c ond, the c o urt did not c le arly e rr in c onc luding tha t this be hav i or dissipa

te d c orporat e a s se ts a

va ila ble to pa y Pla intiffs’ roy a ltie s. Although the distric t c ourt did not e xplic i tly hold tha t disre ga rd of the c o rporate form

wa s ne c e ssa

ry to pre v e n t unjustifie d losse s to 4Pla i ntiffs, this oversight wa s ha rm le ss. The re c ord shows tha t the c orporate e ntitie s
we re ne arly

insolve nt, a

nd the re fore any

dissipa tion re sulting from John Thom pson’ s use of c orporate a s se ts to pa y pe rsona l e xpe nse s would dire c tly and unjustifia bly ha rm Pla i ntiffs. AFFIRM E D.

5