Johnston v. Kroeger

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Texas
DecidedFebruary 15, 2023
Docket1:20-cv-00497
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnston v. Kroeger (Johnston v. Kroeger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnston v. Kroeger, (W.D. Tex. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

KIRK JOHNSTON, § Plaintiff § § v. § § CHAD KROEGER, MICHAEL § KROEGER, RYAN PEAKE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00497-RP § DANIEL ADAIR, ROADRUNNER § RECORDS, INC., and WARNER/ § CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., Defendants §

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Now before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defense of Statute of Limitations and Application of the Discovery Rule to Plaintiff’s Damages (Dkt. 58) and (2) Defendants Chad Kroeger, Michael Kroger, Ryan Peake, Daniel Adair, Roadrunner Records, Inc., and Warner Chappell Music, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 59), both filed December 16, 2022, and the associated response and reply briefs. By Text Orders entered January 3, 2023, the District Court referred the motions to this Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. I. Background Plaintiff Kirk Johnston brings this copyright infringement suit against Chad Kroeger, Michael Kroeger, Ryan Peake, Daniel Adair, Roadrunner Records, Inc., and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Defendants are the individual members of the group Nickelback and the record label and musical publishing company that distribute Nickelback’s work. Johnston alleges that Nickelback’s song Rockstar (“Nickelback’s Work”), released in 2005, copied his original musical composition Rock Star (“Plaintiff’s Work”), which he wrote in 2001 while a member of the band Snowblind. Johnston holds a federal copyright registration for Plaintiff’s Work, U.S. Copyright No. PA 2-216- 632. Dkt. 59-1 at 304. The parties now bring cross-motions for summary judgment.

II. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment will be rendered when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials, and any affidavits on file show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2007). A dispute over a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view all inferences drawn from the factual record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Washburn, 504 F.3d at 508. A court “may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence” in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254-55. Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and thus are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007). Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation also are not competent summary judgment evidence. Id. The party opposing summary judgment must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports its claim. Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2006). If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to

establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court reviews each party’s motion independently, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 611 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2010). III. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment The Court first takes up Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Johnston’s sole claim of copyright infringement. If Defendants prevail on their motion, Johnston’s motion for partial summary judgment will be rendered moot.

A claim for copyright infringement has three elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; (2) factual copying; and (3) substantial similarity. Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147, 152 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Defendants do not challenge Johnston’s copyright ownership, satisfying the first element of infringement. The Court turns to the second element, copying, which is dispositive. A. Factual Copying To establish factual copying, a plaintiff must show that the defendant actually used the copyrighted material to create his own work. Batiste v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 493, 502 (5th Cir. 2020). Absent direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff can raise an inference of factual copying from “(1) proof that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work prior to creation of the infringing work and (2) probative similarity.” Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Recs., Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Peel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2001)), abrogated on other grounds by Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnik, 559 U.S. 154 (2010). A plaintiff can show probative similarity by pointing to “any similarities between the two works,” even as to unprotectable elements, “that, in the normal course of events, would not be expected to arise

independently.” Id. at 370 & n.9. A strong showing of probative similarity can make up for a lesser showing of access. Id. at 371. In fact, a plaintiff may raise an inference of factual copying without any proof of access if the works are “strikingly similar.” Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1978); see also 4 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 13.02[B] (rev. ed. 2020). But the reverse is not true. Even with “overwhelming proof of access,” a plaintiff can’t establish factual copying “without some showing of probative similarity.” Positive Black Talk, 394 F.3d at 371 n.10. Batiste, 976 F.3d at 502.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peel & Company Inc v. Rug Market
238 F.3d 391 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Adams v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
465 F.3d 156 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Turner v. Baylor Richardson Medical Center
476 F.3d 337 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Washburn v. Harvey
504 F.3d 505 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Armour v. Knowles
512 F.3d 147 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Amerisure Insurance v. Navigators Insurance
611 F.3d 299 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
Johnson v. Gordon
409 F.3d 12 (First Circuit, 2005)
Bobby Battle v. U.S. Parole Commission
834 F.2d 419 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Brainard v. Vassar
625 F. Supp. 2d 608 (M.D. Tennessee, 2009)
Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc.
808 F.3d 1031 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Morrill v. Stefani
338 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (C.D. California, 2018)
American Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett
939 F. Supp. 2d 695 (W.D. Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnston v. Kroeger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-kroeger-txwd-2023.