Curet-Velazquez v. Acemla De Puerto Rico, Inc., 656 F.3d 47

Four songs at issue: Pueblo Latino, Distinto y Diferente, Periódico de Ayer, Planté Bandera; Tite Curet died in 2003 leaving three heirs; LAMCO and ACEMLA held copyright licenses and royalties data through contracts signed in 1995 and a 1998 rider extending them; reports and payments were allegedly incomplete or inaccurately reported from 1995–2007 with delays and intermingled data; district court found infringements and awarded maximum statutory damages ($120,000 total) after a bench trial; Curet Heirs’ expert Román assessed damages using two theory frameworks (Opportunity Cost Theory and CVT) and testified despite objections; court later upheld qualification of Román and rejected the Opportunity Cost Theory; appellate court upheld district court’s rulings on discovery, expert testimony, and maximum statutory damages; court addressed waiver issues and concluded no error affected liability or damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preemption and limitations for rescission claim	Curet Heirs argue AR preempts PR rescission claim and limits statute of limitations	ACEMLA/LAMCO contend preemption and PR statute of limitations bar rescission	Waived; arguments not properly raised in district court
Waiver of magistrate judge objections	Arguments regarding ownership assignments and implied license should be reviewed	Defendants waived issues by failing to raise before magistrate judge	Waived; issues not preserved on appeal
Implied license defense	Implied license argument should have been considered on the merits	Waived due to lack of explicit preservation before magistrate judge	Waived; no review on the merits
Discovery and expert testimony discretion	Reopening discovery and allowing new expert testimony prejudiced heirs	Court acted within discretion; extensions sought by defendants were denied; testimony within permissible scope	District court did not abuse discretion; discovery reopening and expert testimony allowed
Maximum statutory damages under § 504(c)(1)	Plaintiffs properly elected statutory damages; maximum allowed should be imposed	Maximum damages are excessive and unsupported by evidence	Affirmed: district court may award maximum statutory damages under § 504(c)(1) based on the record

McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Tech., 950 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1991) (arguments not squarely raised are waived; need developed argument for preservation)
Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 51 (No, 2009) (Supreme Court 2009) (compelling circumstances required to overlook waiver; not present)
Boston Celtics Ltd. P'ship v. Shaw, 908 F.2d 1041 (1st Cir. 1990) (example of preserving arguments and waivers in appellate review)
Clauson v. Smith, 823 F.2d 660 (1st Cir. 1987) (preservation and development of arguments required before district court)