Opinion ID: 2801829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Damages as Issue for Trial.

Text: In the same order denying Ryan’s motion for sanctions, the district court also ordered that the trial would be “limited to the specific issues set forth by the Ninth Circuit for remand,” which did not include reopening the issue of Ryan’s damages. Although Ryan argued that the district court erroneously found her damages were limited to $1.72, our decision in Ryan I reversed the district court’s earlier order only on the issue of copyright infringement liability and reopened the issues of injunctive relief and attorney fees based on the outcome of the remand proceedings. In all other respects, we affirmed the district court. Ryan I contains only one sentence relating to copyright infringement damages: “Insofar as the district court found that Ryan could not prove damages, we note that ArtSelect’s profits from the infringement were at least partially caused by ELW’s unauthorized license of Ryan’s works. See Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2002).” Ryan I, 417 F. App’x at 701. We interpret this statement to relate to causation of damages rather than to the amount of damages, as Ryan urges. Furthermore, Ryan has not suggested that she has any evidence demonstrating additional infringing sales RYAN V. EDITIONS LTD. WEST 23 that would support an increased damages award and concedes that she did not attempt to present such evidence at trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the mandate from Ryan I to exclude damages from the issues for trial.