Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04875/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04875-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BIC PRODUCTIONS,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-4875 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 47]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and Motion for Assignment Order [Docket No.

47]. Having read and considered the arguments presented in the papers submitted to the Court, the

Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court hereby GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

BACKGROUND

This is a copyright infringement action. Defendant failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise

appear in the matter. On May 16, 2005, the Court ordered the entry of default judgment against

Defendant BIC productions, and on September 12, 2005, the Court entered final judgment in the amount

of $417,750.00. On June 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter Judgment and a Motion for

Assignment Order. In these motions, Plaintiff argued that the Judgment should reflect Defendant's

corporate name, South Beach Media Group, Inc., and sought to have certain payments due to South

Beach Media Group, Inc. d/b/a BIC Productions assigned to Plaintiff to pay the judgment in full. 

On September 1, 2006, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's Motions without prejudice,

because "Plaintiff did not name South Beach Media Group, Inc. or South Beach Media Group, Inc. d/b/a

BIC Productions as a party or as an alter ego in the Complaint. There is no reference to either of these

names in any allegation of the Complaint." The Court stated that if Plaintiff elected to re-file the

Case 4:04-cv-04875-SBA Document 52 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

motions, it must address those concerns and "provide the Court with evidence that the motions have

been served on South Beach Media Group, Inc. and/or South Beach Media Group, Inc. d/b/a BIC

Productions." Plaintiff re-filed its motions on October 13, 2006. Defendant did not file oppositions.

On November 29, 2006 this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment

and Motion for Assignment Order. This Court acknowledged that BIC Productions and South Beach

Media Group are most likely alter egos, but stated that Plaintiff had not followed the clear directions

given by this Court in its previous Order of September 1, 2006, by providing evidence that the motions

had been served on South Beach Media Group. This Court stated that the record did not include proof

of service. 

With respect to the Motion for Assignment Order, the Court noted that while it appeared that

Plaintiff may be entitled to an assignment order under California law, absent any response from

Defendant or more specific evidence from Plaintiff, it was impossible for the Court to know whether

the entities named in the Motion for Assignment Order do in fact owe payments to Defendant which can

be assigned to Plaintiff. The Court also noted that Plaintiff did not make clear whether these alleged

payments are owed to BIC Productions or to South Beach Media Group, Inc., and instead referred only

to “the judgment debtor.” The court specifically stated that “if Plaintiff elects to re-file the Motion for

Assignment Order, it shall provide the Court with evidence of payments owed to BIC Productions or

to South Beach Media Group, Inc.” See Docket No. 40.

On December 11, 2006 Plaintiff filed a Request for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration.

Plaintiff pointed out that he had independently filed a certificate of service, giving clear evidence that

the motions had been served on South Beach Media Group. This Court granted Plaintiff's Request for

Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration on December 22, 2006. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for

Reconsideration of Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment and Motion for

Assignment Order on January 4, 2007.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration where the party

Case 4:04-cv-04875-SBA Document 52 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

demonstrates “a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts . . . which were presented to the

Court before such interlocutory order.”

ANALYSIS

1. Motion to Alter Judgment

Plaintiff points out that he independently filed a certificate of service on the same day that he

electronically filed his Motion. The Certificate of Personal Service was entered as Docket No. 39 on

October 13, 2006. The Certificate of Service indicates that Plaintiff served "South Beach Media Group,

Inc." with both Motions on October 11, 2006, two days before filing his Motions with this Court.

The Docket in this matter reflects that Plaintiff has complied with this Court's September 1, 2006

Order requiring him to “provide the Court with evidence that the motions have been served on South

Beach Media Group, Inc. and/or South Beach Media Group, Inc. d/b/a BIC Productions.” Plaintiff filed

a Certificate of Service on October 13, 2006, the same day it filed its Motions. Accordingly, the Court

grants Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Motion to Alter Judgment.

2. Motion for Assignment Order

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to address the Court’s concerns relating to the

Motion for Assignment Order. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of its Motion for Assignment

Order, comprising the entirety of Plaintiff’s evidence, states the following:

 8. I am informed and believe that judgment debtor is entitled to receive, or will be

 entitled to receive assignable payment(s) from the following entities:

a. Cubik Media d/b/a NakedSword licenses copyrighted material owned by

judgment debtor for which it pays licensing fees. Those fees are 100%

assignable.

b. Data Conversions, Inc. (formerly AEBN, Inc.) licenses copyrighted material

owned by judgment debtor for which it pays licensing fees. Those fees are 100%

assignable.

c. Belamco Productions, SRO d/b/a lotionlounge.com licenses copyrighted

material owned by judgment debtor for which it pays licensing fees. Those fees

are 100%

assignable.

d. CCBill, LLC provides merchant processing for judgment debtors website.

Funds collected by CCBill, LLC on judgment debtors behalf are 100%

assignable.

Docket No. 24.

Case 4:04-cv-04875-SBA Document 52 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

The proposed order submitted by Plaintiff specifically orders the entities which purportedly owe

sums to the judgment debtor to pay such sums to Plaintiff, yet Plaintiff has provided the court with no

evidence that such sums are actually owed. As Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s November

29, 2006 directive that it provide specific evidence demonstrating that the entities named in the Motion

for Assignment Order do in fact owe payments to Defendant which can be assigned to Plaintiff and to

clarify whether these alleged payments are owed to BIC Productions or to South Beach Media Group,

Inc., the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Motion for Assignment Order

without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have one more chance to rectify the indicated deficiencies; if it cannot

come forward with the appropriate evidence if it chooses to re-file its Motion for Assignment Order, the

Motion will be denied with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED with

respect to the Motion to Alter Judgment. Final judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against

South Beach Media Group, Inc., d/b/a BIC Productions in the amount of $417,750.00. Plaintiff’s Motion

with respect to the Motion for Assignment Order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/8/07 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04875-SBA Document 52 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4