Banco Popular de PR, et al v. Latin American Music, et al, No. 3:2001cv01142 - Document 488 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 476 Motion requesting Order. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 3/9/10. (SAA) Modified on 3/10/2010 as to title (mim).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, INC., 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 8 LATIN AMERICAN MUSIC CO., INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CIVIL NO. 01-1142 (GAG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 16, 2009, the court held a bench trial in the above-captioned case to determine ownership of the song Fichas Negras which is disputed between co-defendants Universal and Latin American Music Company, Inc. ( LAMCO ). Prior to the trial, the court ruled on summary judgment that LAMCO s 1995 recordation of its assignment contract would have priority over EMLASA s 1981 Mexican assignment contract if it was determined that LAMCO s 1995 recordation and 1999 registration of the copyright of Fichas Negras were valid. (Docket Nos. 408, 409.) After the bench trial, the court ruled that the registration was in fact valid and held that Universal was unable to meet the evidentiary burden necessary to invalidate LAMCO s registration. (See Docket No. 464.) On February, 18, 2010, Universal filed a Rule 59 (a)(2) motion (Docket No. 476), moving the court to amend and alter its Bench Trial Opinion and Order (Docket No. 464 ) because (1) the court s decision to admit the exhibits to the assignment agreement was an error of law; and (2) because there were several publications of the works Fichas Negras which constitute newly discovered evidence and should move the court to invalidate LAMCO s copyright registration. After reviewing Universal s motion and LAMCO s corresponding opposition, as well as the pertinent law, the court DENIES Universal s Rule 59(a) motion (Docket No. 476) and affirms its previous order (Docket No. 464). Civil No. 01-1142 (GAG) 1 I. Admission of Evidence 2 In its previous Opinion and Order (Docket No. 464), the court ruled that the assignment 3 contracts were admissible for the specific purpose of demonstrating which works were recorded by 4 LAMCO with the United States Copyright Office ( USCO ) in 1995. As the evidenced was 5 admitted for this limited purpose, the court held that the decision in U.S. v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70 6 (1st Cir. 1999) was inapplicable. 7 With regard to the validity and authenticity of the assignment contract itself, LAMCO 8 presented the testimony of Raul Bernard, President of LAMCO, who testified, through personal 9 knowledge, that the addendum to the assignment contract had been prepared by Johnny Rodriguez. 10 He also testified that the handwritten list of songs was written by Johnny Rodriguez at the time he 11 transferred copyright ownership of the works to LAMCO. The court found Bernard s testimony 12 credible. As the party challenging the recordation, Universal had the burden to present evidence 13 invalidating the recordation of the assignment contract. 14 Nationwide Ins.Licensing Associates, Inc., 119 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Bibbero Sys., 15 Inc. v. Colwell Sys., Inc., 893 F.2d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 1990)) ( [A] certificate of copyright 16 registration constitutes prima facie evidence of copyrightability and shifts the burden to the [other 17 party] to demonstrate why the copyright is not valid. ). In order to do so, Universal needed to 18 present evidence calling into question the credibility of Bernard s statements regarding the validity 19 of the assignment of the various works which included Fichas Negras. Universal was unable to 20 present any evidence controverting this testimony and therefore the court admitted the documents 21 for the aforementioned purposes. See Saenger Organization, Inc. v. 22 In light of the court s analysis, the court once again reiterates that the holding of U.S. v. 23 Vigneau is inapplicable. Therefore, the court DENIES Universal s Rule 59(a) motion with regard 24 to its contention that the court committed an error of law by admitting the assignment agreement and 25 attached addendum for the purposes stated by the court. 26 27 28 2 Civil No. 01-1142 (GAG) 1 II. Newly Discovered Evidence 2 In its previous Opinion and Order (Docket No. 464), the court ruled that Universal had failed 3 to meet its burden at trial to present evidence that LAMCO s March 22, 1999 registration of the 4 work Fichas Negras was invalid because it contained willful and material omissions and 5 misstatements. Universal now moves the court to consider what it has labeled as newly discovered 6 evidence that allegedly supports its contention that LAMCO s 1999 registration contained willful 7 misstatements. 8 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(a)(2) standard to constitute newly discovered 9 evidence requires that the movant must demonstrate that (1) the evidence has been discovered since 10 trial; (2) the evidence could not by due diligence have been discovered earlier; (3) the evidence is 11 not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably 12 change the result if a new trial is granted. Acosta-Mestre v. Hilton Intern. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 156 13 F.3d 49, 56 (1st Cir. 1998) (citing Duffy v. Clippinger, 857 F.2d 877, 879 (1st Cir.1988)). 14 Universal contends that following the bench trial on October 16, 2009, it has been able to 15 procure evidence of previous publications of the work Fichas Negras which it was unable to obtain 16 prior to the courts final ruling. Universal alleges that given the seven-day-window between the 17 October 9, 2009 denial of Universal s motion for summary judgment and the October 16, 2009 18 Bench Trial, it was unable to obtain admissible evidence of previous publications of the work 19 Fichas Negras. However, contrary to Universal s averments, the opportunity to collect evidence 20 bearing upon the court s ability to determine ownership over this work, and, hence, the validity of 21 the copyright registration, has existed for a much longer period than the cited seven-day-window. 22 In its Rule 59 motion, Universal fails to offer any explanation as to why such evidence was not 23 obtainable through the exercise of due diligence by Universal over the past nine years of litigation. 24 See In re Pabon Rodriguez, 233 B. R. 212, 219 (Bankr. D. P. R.1999), aff'd, 17 Fed. Appx. 5 (1st 25 Cir.2001) (quoting Union Bank of Switzerland v. HS Equities, Inc., 458 F.Supp. 1166, 1167 26 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (denying Rule 59 motion when party had a full opportunity to proffer the evidence, 27 28 3 Civil No. 01-1142 (GAG) 1 failed to do so and . . . offered no excuse for such failure. ). The court further recognizes that the 2 controversy over ownership of this specific work was discussed on multiple occasions, putting all 3 parties on notice that this form of evidence would be pertinent. See Acosta-Mestre, 156 F.3d at 56 4 (affirming district court s denial for new trial when party, acting with due diligence, would have 5 discovered new evidence before trial). 6 Therefore, regardless of whether the introduction of this evidence would compel the court 7 to reconsider its previous order, such evidence cannot be considered by the court as it does not 8 constitute newly discovered evidence under Rule 59(a) and is, therefore, untimely. As such, the 9 court DENIES Universal s Rule 59(a) motion (Docket No. 476) and affirms the court s holding in 10 its previous Opinion and Order (Docket No. 464). 11 SO ORDERED. 12 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 9th day of March, 2010. 13 14 s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí 15 GUSTAVO A. GELPI United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.