Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast

Background

A jury found in favor of Erickson Productions, Inc. and Jim Erickson, together referred to as “Erickson,” and against Kraig R. Kast. The jury found that Kast had vicariously and contributorily infringed Erickson’s copyrights in three photographs and that the infringement was willful. After an earlier damages award was vacated on appeal, a later jury awarded Erickson $45,000 in statutory damages for willful contributory copyright infringement. The court entered judgment on May 24, 2024.

Kast appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then moved to stay the judgment pending appeal. Kast represented himself, and Erickson opposed the motion.

Motion to Stay

The court treated Kast’s request as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). That rule allows a party to obtain a stay after judgment by providing a bond or other security. The court explained that a supersedeas bond protects the prevailing party’s ability to collect the judgment and interest if the judgment is affirmed on appeal.

Kast did not post a bond. A court may waive the usual full-bond requirement if the moving party objectively demonstrates why a bond should not be required. Courts in the Ninth Circuit commonly consider five factors: the complexity of collection; the time needed to collect after an affirmance; the court’s confidence that funds will be available; whether the defendant’s ability to pay makes a bond unnecessary; and whether requiring a bond would harm other creditors because of the defendant’s precarious financial position.

Kast did not address those factors in this motion. Instead, he argued that he was likely to prevail on appeal because he had prevailed twice before and would again show that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding of willfulness.

Ruling

The court rejected that argument. It relied on its earlier ruling denying Kast’s renewed request for judgment as a matter of law, which found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Kast willfully infringed each of the three photographs. Because Kast had not posted a bond and had not shown grounds to waive the bond requirement, the court denied his motion to stay the judgment pending appeal.

The opinion also refers to a February 12, 2021 judgment when discussing enforcement, while separately stating that judgment was entered on May 24, 2024.