Lopez v. Gonzalez et al — District Court Denies Copyright Damages Motion Without Prejudice for Failure to Specify Statutory Election and Provide Segregated Billing Records

Background

Jose Manuel Lopez filed a copyright infringement action against Lee Michael Gonzales and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division, under Civil Action No. 6:25-CV-00024. In his First Amended Complaint (D.E. 39), Lopez elected to pursue statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) rather than actual damages. He subsequently filed a motion for damages (D.E. 44), which Magistrate Judge Jason Libby addressed in a Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 54) recommending that the district court deny the motion without prejudice.

Lopez filed written objections (D.E. 56), primarily arguing that the M&R applied the legal standard for calculating actual damages rather than statutory damages. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a district judge must make a de novo determination of the portions of a magistrate judge's report to which objection is made, but a party must point out alleged errors with particularity; objections that merely re-urge the original briefing, or that are frivolous, conclusive, or general, need not be considered.

The Court’s Holding

On November 5, 2026, the district court overruled Lopez's objections, adopted the M&R's findings and recommendations, and denied the motion for damages without prejudice. The court recognized that the First Amended Complaint did elect statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (D.E. 39, p. 13), but explained that the damages motion itself did not reference that election, did not propose an appropriate amount of damages within the applicable statutory range, and cited generally to a declaration without attaching or incorporating it in any meaningful way.

The court also shared the M&R's concern regarding Lopez's billing methods. Because Lopez's counsel indicated a willingness to address those concerns with revised, further-segregated billing records, the court permitted him to file such records. The amended motion, due on or before December 1, 2026, must specify Lopez's damages election, attach any supporting documentary evidence, and propose an appropriate amount of damages within the applicable statutory range; it may also attach the revised billing records. The order further provides that Lopez is not permitted to request additional attorney fees or costs associated with preparing the amended motion.

Key Takeaways

• A copyright plaintiff who elects statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) in the complaint must still explicitly reference that election in any motion for damages and propose a specific amount within the statutory range.
• A general citation to a supporting declaration, without attaching or meaningfully incorporating it, is insufficient to support a copyright damages motion.
• Objections to a magistrate judge's report must identify alleged errors with particularity; merely re-urging prior arguments, or raising frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, will not be considered on de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
• A court may deny a damages motion without prejudice and allow an amended motion to cure defects such as an unspecified damages election, an unproposed amount, or inadequately segregated billing records.
• When a court permits an amended damages motion, it may simultaneously bar recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred in preparing that amended motion.

Why It Matters

This order underscores that electing statutory damages in a copyright complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of matching that election in the damages motion itself. Even where the pleading properly invokes 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), a motion that fails to reference the election, propose an amount within the statutory range, or attach meaningful support may be denied without prejudice, delaying recovery and inviting restrictions on fees for any renewed motion.

The decision also illustrates the structured nature of district court review of magistrate judge recommendations: de novo review applies to objected-to portions, but only objections stated with particularity receive full consideration. Together, these principles reinforce the need for procedural precision in copyright damages practice and the consequences of imprecise motion practice, including the court's express limitation on recovering fees and costs tied to preparing an amended damages motion.