Opinion ID: 757727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the District Court's Judgment

Text: 34 Finally, Warner argues that the district court's judgment was too broad because it encompassed relief neither sought by Ahlert in the complaint nor litigated at trial. The district court ordered Warner to 35 account for and pay to [Ahlert] a sum equal to the amount of 50% of all other mechanical royalties paid to defendant for United States use of the Song in phonorecords first licensed and distributed during the extended renewal copyright term, ... excluding phonorecords made and distributed by A & M Records and identified as Record No. SP 4182. 36 Warner claims that any award to Ahlert should have been limited to the amount of all mechanical royalties paid to WARNER for use of the Dixon Share in the Soundtrack Album, together with prejudgment interest, as was requested in the complaint. We disagree. 37 In its prayer for relief, Ahlert asked the district court to grant[ ] such other and further relief as the court may deem to be just and proper, invoking the district court's power, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202, to provide any [f]urther necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree ... against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment. A district court may grant further relief, including monetary damages, whether or not it ha[d] been demanded, or even proved, in the original action for declaratory relief. Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Charles K. Harris Music Publ'g, 255 F.2d 518, 522 (2d Cir.1958); accord Insurance Servs. of Beaufort, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 966 F.2d 847, 851-52 (4th Cir.1992); Horn & Hardart Co. v. National Rail Passenger Corp., 843 F.2d 546, 548-49 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also Beacon Constr. Co. v. Matco Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 392, 399-400 (2d Cir.1975) (further relief under § 2202 includes damages); Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Van Impe, 787 F.2d 163, 166 (3d Cir.1986); Security Ins. Co. v. White, 236 F.2d 215, 220 (10th Cir.1956). 38 The district court declared that Ahlert, rather than Warner, has the authority to license new uses of the Song, as embodied by the Cocker derivative, for the duration of the extended renewal term. The relief awarded by the district court followed directly from that declaration: because Ahlert is entitled to receive royalties from post-termination licenses, the judgment awarding those royalties to Ahlert was proper relief based on a declaratory judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Although Warner argues that recovery of some of the royalties the Court has awarded ... may independently be barred by the statute of limitations, laches, or other defenses, Appellant's Brief at 35, it nowhere indicates which royalties might be so barred, or what other defenses might bar relief. Furthermore, the record reveals no objection to the scope of relief by Warner in the district court. We will not vacate an award, otherwise proper under § 2202, on the basis of unpreserved claims of theoretical error.