Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR., an ) individual, MAYWEATHER ) PROMOTIONS; MAYWEATHER ) PROMOTIONS, LLC; PHILTHY ) RICH RECORDS, INC; and WORLD ) WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) )
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFIT DAMAGES (DOCKET 172) PURSUANT TO RULES 59(e) AND 60(b), FED. R. CIV. P. AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I. INTRODUCTION On May 11, 2012, this Court granted Defendants motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages and profit damages. Plaintiff respectfully moves under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. that the Court reconsider its Order and find that Plaintiff has met his burden for establishing his entitlement to actual damages
1
3:10-cv-01036-JFA
Page 2 of 8
and a profit-based measure of damages.1 This motion is made and based upon the following memorandum of points and authorities, all papers and pleadings on file herein, and any argument of counsel the Court entertains. Plaintiff respectfully submits that this Court erred in applying the standard for the causal connection requirement, and further erred in characterizing Defendants profits as indirect profits. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Rule 59(e) permits motions to reconsider to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007). Under Rule 60(b), a court may grant relief from an order for mistake or any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). The ultimate responsibility of the federal courts, at all levels, is to reach the correct judgment under the law. See American Canoe Assn v. Murphy Farms, 326 F.3d 505, 515 (4th Cir. 2003). In this matter, Plaintiff respectfully contends this Court, in holding that Defendants may make millions of dollars in profits from a performance and broadcast using two minutes of Plaintiffs song without permission and Plaintiff may not reach these profits with a copyright claim, has made a clear error of law justifying relief under both Rules 59(e) and 60(b).
B.
This decision represents a significant misreading of Bouchat and Bonner and an unprecedented limitation on the rights of artists and other copyright holders
1