Keeling v. New Rock Theater Productions, LLC et al, No. 1:2010cv09345 - Document 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION re: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 139 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Jaime Keeling, 143 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Ethan Garber. Before the court are two motions for reconsideration of the court's resolution of Garbe r's post-trial motion. First, Keeling moves for reconsideration of the order granting a new trial on the issue of Garber's liability after his attempts to stop the infringement. Second, Garber moves for reconsideration of the court's d enial of his motion for a new trial on the amount of New Rock's profits. Both motions are denied. This opinion resolves the motions listed as document numbers 141 and 143 in this case. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/19/2013) (ama)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
:: :;;- :----, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAIME KEELING, Plaintiff, v. 10 Civ. 9345 NEW ROCK THEATER PRODUCTIONS, LLC, EVE HARS, and ETHAN GARBER, OPINION Defendants. Plaintiff Jaime Keeling brings this copyright action against defendants Eve Hars, Ethan Garber, and their company, New Rock Theater Productions, LLC. The work at issue is a theater production called Point Break LWEI At the conclusion of trial, the jury found in Keeling's favor, concluding that ¢ Keeling is the sole-owner of Point Break LIVE!; ¢ Point Break LIVE! was a parody that made fair use of the film Point Break; ¢ All three defendants infringed Keeling's copyright (though not willfully); ¢ Keeling suffered $50,000 in actual damages; and ¢ Defendants' profits over five years of infringing activity totaled $200,000. Judgment was entered in the amount of $250,000, representing Keeling's actual damages and all profit earned from the infringing activity. Defendant Garber then moved for a new trial. The court denied the motion, in part, finding that the jury's calculation of profits was not egregious and did not shock the conscience, so a new trial on that issue was not warranted. But the court granted a new trial on the limited issue of whether Garber maintained his control over New Rock beyond the moment when he tried 1 unsuccessfully to stop the infringement because he is only liable if he controlled the company. Before the court are two motions for reconsideration of the court's resolution of Garber's post-trial motion. First, Keeling moves for reconsideration of the order granting a new trial on the issue of Garber's liability after his attempts to stop the infringement. Second, Garber moves for reconsideration of the court's denial of his motion for a new trial on the amount of New Rock's profits. Both motions are denied. This opinion resolves the motions listed as document numbers 141 and 143 in this case. So ordered. Dated: New York, New York December 19, 2013 Thomas P. Griesa United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
