Kleier Advertising, Inc. v. John Deery Motors, Inc.

834 F. Supp. 311, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18815, 1993 WL 417933
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa
DecidedSeptember 24, 1993
DocketC 91-2045
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 834 F. Supp. 311 (Kleier Advertising, Inc. v. John Deery Motors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kleier Advertising, Inc. v. John Deery Motors, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 311, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18815, 1993 WL 417933 (N.D. Iowa 1993).

Opinion

ORDER

McMANUS, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed September 7, 1993. Adopted.

On June 15, 1993, the court granted plaintiffs’ unresisted Motion to Hold Defendant Bench Billboard Advertising (Bench) in Contempt of Court, filed October 19, 1992, and unresisted Motions for Default Judgment against Bench and Dennis O. Knudson, filed January 15, 1993 and March 4, 1993. The court referred the matter to Chief Magistrate Judge John A. Jarvey for a Report and Recommendation as to the amount of damages, fees and any other relief deemed appropriate.

No objections having been filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the court finding no error of fact or law, the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be accepted and adopted.

It is therefore

ORDERED

1. Plaintiff Kleier Advertising is awarded $74,085.53 in damages against defendants Bench Billboard Advertising and Dennis O. Knudson.

2. Defendant/Cross-Claimant John Deery Motors, Inc. is awarded $25,000 in damages against Defendants Bench Billboard Advertising and Dennis O. Knudson.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JARVEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the court pursuant to Judge Edward J. McManus’s June 15, *313 1993, order (docket number 47) referring the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation as to the amount of damages, fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate in this matter. The undersigned recommends damages and fees in the full amount claimed by the prevailing parties as set forth in their affidavits and memoranda.

FACTS

This case involves copyright infringement of advertising materials owned by plaintiff Kleier Advertising, Inc. (Kleier), which Kleier licensed to retail operations, all of which are automobile dealerships. Defendants Bench Billboard Advertising (Bench) and Dennis O. Knudson (Knudson) appropriated Kleier’s advertisement and licensed it as their own to three clients, including defendant/cross-claimant John Deery Motors, Inc. (Deery). Deery settled with Kleier for $25,-000, but cross-claimed against the other defendants for indemnity. Judge McManus’s June 15, 1993, order granted Kleier’s motion to hold defendants Bench and Knudson in contempt of court. Bench and Knudson had failed to comply with orders compelling discovery of the two unknown parties to whom defendants sold the infringing advertisement. Judge McManus’s order also entered default judgment against Bench and Dennis O. Knudson and in favor of Kleier and cross-claimant Deery as sanctions for contempt.

Pursuant to the July 13,1993, order of this court (docket number 51), the parties submitted affidavits in support of their damage claims and waived an evidentiary hearing. 1 The affidavit of Bruce L. Gettman, Jr., on behalf of Deery (docket number 52), seeks indemnity from Bench and Knudson as follows:

Payment of actual damages, interest and attorneys fees. $11,901.60
Payment for Deery’s stipulated profits to which the Plaintiff was entitled. $13,098.40
$25,000.00

The affidavit (docket number 53) of Gregory L. Himebuch, representative of Deery’s insurer, Milwaukee Insurance Co., and the person who authorized settlement by Deery in the amount of $25,000, also supports Deery’s damage claim as fair and reasonable.

Kleier’s July 27, 1993, memorandum associated with the calculation of default judgment damages (docket number 56) and the July 27, 1993, affidavit of Glenn E. Kleier (docket number 55) present Kleier’s claim for damages in the Waterloo, Iowa, market. After giving credit for the portions paid by Deery, Kleier claims as follows:

1. License fee $13,887.00
Less portion paid by Deery (4,629.00)
2. Prejudgment interest from February 1, 1987 through August 1, 1993 (78 months) at an average prime lending rate approximated to be 10% per annum 9,026.55
Less portion paid by Deery (3,385.18)
3. Knudson/Bench Billboards “revenues” 3,896.40
4. Prejudgment interest on Knudson/ Bench Billboards revenues calculated as above 2,532.66
BALANCE OWING $21,328.43

Kleier also submitted damages claims for the two “mystery markets” based on the assumption that those markets were roughly equivalent to the Waterloo, Iowa, one. The liability for these two markets was calculated as follows:

MARKET ONE:
1. License fee $13,887.00
2. Knudson/Bench Billboard’s income 2,400.00
SUBTOTAL . 16,287.00
3.Prejudgment interest from February 1, 1987 through August 1, 1993 (calculated as above) 10,586.55
TOTAL 26,873.55
MARKET TWO:
1. License fee 13,887.00
2. Knudson/Bench Billboard’s income 1,800.00
SUBTOTAL 15,687.00
3.Prejudgment interest calculated as
above 10,196.55
TOTAL 25,883.55

Kleier’s total damage claim is therefore:

1. Waterloo Market $21,328.43
2. Market One 26,873.55
3. Market Two 25,883.55
TOTAL 74,085.53

*314 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

It is a proper exercise of judicial power for a court upon default, by taking evidence when necessary or by computation from facts of record, to fix the amount which the prevailing party is lawfully entitled to recover and to give judgment accordingly. Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12, 65 S.Ct. 16, 22, 89 L.Ed. 3 (1944); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed what damages are available for copyright infringement:

Under § 504(b) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), “[t]he copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the in-fringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.... ”

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

Related

Patray v. Northwest Publishing, Inc.
931 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
834 F. Supp. 311, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18815, 1993 WL 417933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleier-advertising-inc-v-john-deery-motors-inc-iand-1993.