Case 3:00-cv-01338-FAB Document 513

Filed 05/17/12 Page 1 of 3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
No. 12-1421 TMTV, CORP., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MASS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellants, CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP LOGRONO-SANTINI, ET AL., Defendants. _________________________ Before Boudin, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT Entered: May 16, 2012 Appellants moved to stay, pending the resolution of their appeal, an order of the District Court which grants appellee TMTV possession of tapes of the television show "El Condominio." On April 11, 2012, this court entered a temporary stay to enable appellee to respond and the court to fully consider the arguments regarding the propriety of a stay. Appellee filed its response on April 17, 2012, and appellants filed a reply on April 24, 2012. Because the issues have been extensively briefed by the parties and denial of the stay could effectively moot the case, we think a disposition on the merits is appropriate. The district court did not lack jurisdiction to enter an order granting possession of the infringing tapes to appellees under 17 U.S.C. 503(b). The tapes were already within the court's jurisdiction, being subject to a temporary impoundment order entered pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 503(a); that order, when entered, clearly contemplated further action by the district court. Accordingly, the district court retained jurisdiction, analogous to that possessed in the context of an injunction, to enter a further order providing for the

Case 3:00-cv-01338-FAB Document 513

Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 3

permanent disposition of the impounded items.1 As for the district court's authority, Defendants object that that "[a]s part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies ... found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owners exclusive rights." 503(b)(emphasis added). Certainly the statute contemplates a resolution of the merits before destruction is ordered, but so long as the merits have been finally resolved the statute does not forbid a destruction order to be entered following the final judgment so long the district court has continuing jurisdiction over the tapes.2 Finally, defendants argue that the turnover order was inappropriate because third parties--the actors in the infringing television series "El Condominio"--have "ownership rights over their characters" and have not given plaintiff authorization to "transmit or otherwise exploit" their rights. No such third party has intervened to assert such rights or is otherwise a party to this case save for Emanuel Logrono and his rights to the tapes have already been conclusively litigated and decided in plaintiff's favor, with a finding by this court that Logrono has no intellectual property interest in "El Condominio." Moreover, the issue of the fate of the tapes after their transfer is not before this court at this time. To the extent that defendants--or any other party--seek to challenge any as-yet untaken action by TMTV with respect to the tapes, they must commence a proceeding at the appropriate time in an appropriate forum. Accordingly, the district judge's order is affirmed and the request for a stay pending appeal is denied as moot. The stay order issued by this court on April 11, 2012 is vacated. It is so ordered. By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk.

See, e.g., TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 366, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(characterizing orders under 503(b) as comparable to injunctions); Poliquin v. Ganden Way, Inc., 989 F.2d 527, 535 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that district courts have the "inherent power" to modify or terminate an injunction "even after judgment"). It is common for the district court to enter a final judgment but thereafter resolve ancillary issues over which it has reserved authority. Attorneys' fees and sanctions are only some of the various clean-up matters that illustrate this point. See, e.g., Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Ideal Roofing Co., Ltd., 294 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2002); Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 437 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 2006).

Case: 12-1421 3:00-cv-01338-FAB Page: 3 Date Filed 05/17/12 Entry ID: Case Document: 34 Document 513 Filed: 05/16/2012 Page 3 of 3 5641715

cc: Roberto Sueiro-Del Valle Freddie Oscar Torres-Gomez Nestor Mendez-Gomez John F. Nevares Padilla, Sr. Maria Dolores Trelles-Hernandez Edna Hernandez-Arroyo Margarita Luisa Mercado-Echegaray Jose A. Hernandez-Mayoral Francisco Ortiz-Santini