Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and files this Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment as to the Courts findings, verdict, and judgment as to Count XII
The Court stated while delivering its verdict that Mr. Hoge had failed to
damages based on the Copyright Act would be punitive in nature. It also did not
grant injunctive relief because it found that Mr. Hoge has failed to allege damages.
Mr. Hoge did allege damages. A copyright holder suffers irreparable harm as
because it deprive[s] the copyright holder of intangible exclusive rights,1 and the
Complaint states: Mr. Hoge suffered damages in loss of control of his copyrighted
works. Complaint, 86. Further, there was evidence before the Court that
1Christopher Phelps & Associates, LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 544 (4th Cir.
2007).
Therefore, Mr. Hoge suffered damage in the form of irreparable harm from
The Court should not view an award of money damages based on the
amounts prescribed in the Copyright Act as punitive. Respectfully, the Court has
misapprehended the law. The damages available under 17. U.S.C. 504(c) are not
punitive damages but are more akin to liquidated damages set by statute. As in
other situations in which liquidated damages are appropriate, it is often the case
that damages resulting from the loss of control of ones copyrighted work can be
Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly Engineers LLP, 313 F.Supp.2d 247, 253
(S.D.N.Y., 2004), footnote omitted. Indeed, in Sparaco the damages provided under
504 were considered to be so similar to actual contract damages that the plaintiff
was not allowed recovery under 504 because he had previously received
compensation under a contract theory and further recovery would have amounted to
double recovery for the same harm. Therefore, Mr. Hoge asks for money damages
as would be allowed under 17 U.S.C 504(c). Such damages may range from a
courts discretion and whether the infringement was willful. Such an award would
2
not be punitive but should be seen as liquidated damages in for the irreparable
Finally, The Court should also grant the injunctive relief Mr. Hoge seeks
because further breaches of the contract will expose Mr. Hoge to further irreparable
harm. Permanent injunctive relief requiring William Schmalfeldt to obey the terms
of the Settlement Agreement is just and proper as a matter of equity and should be
CONCLUSION
Mr. Hoge alleged, and the Court found, that the Settlement Agreement
referenced in Count XII was a valid contract and that Schmalfledt had breached its
terms. Because pro se pleadings should be liberally construed 2 and considering that
Mr. Hoge did allege damages in the form of loss of control of his copyrights, the
Court should reconsider and find that damages were properly pleaded as to Count
XII.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to alter or amend its findings, verdict,
i.) to find that Mr. Hoge properly pleaded damages in his Count XII
ii.) to award Mr. Hoge damages from Schmalfeldt of not less than
$200 per infringement for each act of infringement alleged in Count XII,
2 Simms v. State, 409 Md. 722, 976 A.2d 1012, 1018 (2009).
3
iii.) to enjoin Schmalfeldt from further publication of Mr. Hoges
iv.) to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 28th day of August, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817