Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Company

Background

Disney moved to strike Rearden’s jury demand as to Rearden’s claim for disgorgement of profits. The court had previously determined that a jury would be empaneled to hear Rearden’s claim for actual damages. The remaining question was whether that jury also had to decide the disgorgement claim.

Statutory right to a jury

The court held that 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) does not give Rearden a statutory right to a jury trial on disgorgement of profits. The court considered decisions reasoning that Congress’s use of the word “court” in other Copyright Act provisions, but not in § 504(b), could suggest a jury right. It rejected that interpretation, reasoning that the statute’s silence did not create an express or implied right to have a jury decide the issue.

Seventh Amendment right

The court also held that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury. The most important consideration in that analysis is whether the requested remedy is legal or equitable. Relying on the history of disgorgement in copyright-infringement actions and cited precedent, the court concluded that disgorgement of profits is an equitable remedy rather than a legal one. Rearden therefore did not have a constitutional right to a jury on that claim.

Disposition

The court granted Disney’s motion to strike Rearden’s jury demand on the disgorgement-of-profits claim. The court also granted Rearden’s alternative request to empanel an advisory jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c). The court stated that an advisory jury’s conclusions would help guide its findings and conclusions because a jury had already been empaneled to decide actual damages.