Opinion ID: 734276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Stations Were Separate Infringers.

Text: 47 Section 504(c)(1) of the Act provides that statutory damages may be awarded for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally.... Thus, when statutory damages are assessed against one defendant or a group of defendants held to be jointly and severally liable, each work infringed may form the basis of only one award, regardless of the number of separate infringements of that work. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135, 143-44 (5th Cir.1992). However, where separate infringements for which two or more defendants are not jointly liable are joined in the same action, separate awards of statutory damages would be appropriate. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 162, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. and Admin.News 5778; Mason, 967 F.2d at 144. 48 By finding that the 'Who's the Boss?' episodes broadcast by WNFT are separate acts of infringement from the episodes broadcast by WTVX, the district court impliedly found that WNFT and WTVX were not joint tortfeasors with respect to the broadcasting of these episodes. Feltner, relying on RCA/Ariola International, Inc. v. Thomas & Grayston Co., 845 F.2d 773, 778-779 (8th Cir.1988), argues that this finding was erroneous because Columbia had repeatedly alleged in its complaint that all of the defendants acted together and should be treated as one. See ER Tab 1, First Amended Complaint, pp 18, 19, 31-114. 49 RCA/Ariola is distinguishable. In that case, the district court had found a group of defendants to be jointly and severally liable. Id. at 778. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that the district court's finding was erroneous. Because the plaintiff asserted in its summary judgment papers that the defendants were jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff invited any error and ha[d] no grounds to complain. Id. at 779. In contrast to RCA/Ariola, the district court's finding was contrary to the allegations in the complaint and it is the defendant who is challenging the findings. Feltner has not presented sufficient facts to develop a judicial estoppel argument. See Rockwell International v. Hanford Atomic Metal Trades, 851 F.2d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir.1988) (defining purpose of judicial estoppel as preventing the use of inconsistent assertions that would result in an 'affront to judicial dignity' and 'a means of obtaining unfair advantage' ) (citations omitted). Thus, despite the fact that the district court's finding on this issue was both favorable to the plaintiff and contrary to the complaint, Feltner has failed to demonstrate that the finding was erroneous. 7 50