NEW FORM, INC., DBA Laguna Films v. TEKILA FILMS, INC.; MARCO INIGUEZ, an individual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable William T. Hart, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEW FORM, INC., DBA Laguna Films,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TEKILA FILMS, INC.; MARCO
INIGUEZ, an individual,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 08-56001
D.C. No. 2:02-cv-02296-FMC-E
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 6, 2009 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HART, *** Senior District Judge.
FILED
NOV 12 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Tekila Films, Inc. and Marco Iniguez (“Tekila Films”) bring this appeal after
a jury trial in which they were found to have willfully infringed fifteen of New
Form’s copyrights to Mexican films. Before trial, the district court rejected Tekila
Films’s proposed jury instruction defining “statutory damages” under the
Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Tekila Films appeals that ruling, and
claims that the jury’s subsequent award of $1,312,500 in statutory damages to New
Form was excessive. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt Tekila
Films’s proposed jury instruction that would direct the jury to measure statutory
damages in relation to actual damages using the “fair market value” of the
infringed works. A statutory damages award within the limits prescribed by
Congress is appropriate “[e]ven for uninjurious and unprofitable invasions of
copyright.” F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 233
(1952). We have consistently held and stated that statutory damages are
recoverable without regard to the existence or provability of actual damages. See,
e.g., Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc.,
259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001); L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l,
Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998); Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc.,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
909 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir. 1990). There is no required nexus between actual
and statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Accordingly, the district court
did not err in refusing Tekila Films’s proposed instruction, which itself would have
been a misstatement of the law.
Tekila Films also alleges that the jury awarded excessive damages because
the statutory award was “far in excess of and disproportionate to the actual
damages” New Form suffered. This argument is a retooled version of the jury-
instruction argument above. Tekila Films’s excessive-verdict claim turns on the
incorrect premise that statutory damages must be tethered to actual damages.
Because there is no such requirement, the jury’s verdict cannot be deemed
excessive on that basis.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --