Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01651/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01651-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., 

et al., No. CIV S- 06-1651 DFL GGH

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

RANDY SMITH, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Defendant. 

___________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment against defendant Smith, filed

January 24, 2007, was submitted on the record. Local Rule 78-230(h). Upon review of the

motion and the supporting documents, and good cause appearing, the court issues the following

findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2006, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint in this action against

defendant Smith, alleging defendant was using the internet to illegally download various

copyrighted sound recordings and distribute them. The summons and complaint were served on

defendant Smith on October 26, 2006, by leaving them at defendant’s address with defendant’s

co-tenant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d

1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendant has

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this action. On December 6, 2006, the clerk

entered default against defendant Smith. 

Notice of entry of default and the instant motion for default judgment and

supporting papers were served by mail on defendant at his last known address. Defendant filed

no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment. Plaintiffs seek an entry of default

judgment in the amount of $8,250.00 in statutory damages, $420.00 in costs, and a permanent

injunction. 

DISCUSSION

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir.

1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which

relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). 

To prevail on a claim for copyright infringement, plaintiff must establish

ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying of original elements of the work by the

defendant. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Plaintiffs

have alleged ownership of valid copyright registrations in the sound recordings that defendant

allegedly downloaded illegally from the Internet. See Complaint (“Compl.”), at ¶¶ 15-17; Exs.

A-B. Plaintiffs have also alleged unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the protected

works. Compl., at ¶ 17. The complaint is sufficiently plead and states a claim for copyright

infringement.

Plaintiffs need not prove those actual damages to recover the statutory damages

they seek. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d

1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages as authorized by 17 U.S.C. §

504(c), in the amount of $8,250.00. Compl., at ¶ 20; Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

(“Motion”), at 4:7-8. The court notes that defendant did not bother to respond to this action in

any way, and thereby forfeited any argument he may have had to contest the amount of damages.

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

The court deems defaulting defendant, by his failure to appear or defend this action, to have

waived any objections to the statutory source of the damages prayed for in the instant motion. 

The memorandum of points and authorities and affidavits filed in support of the motion for entry

of default judgment supports the finding that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested. There

are no policy considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. 

See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Remedies

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages in the amount of $8,250.00, a permanent

injunction and an award of costs in the amount of $420.00 for filing fees and service of process. 

Plaintiffs do not seek attorneys’ fees. 

A. Injunction

Plaintiffs seek an injunction in the following form to enjoin defendant’s wrongful

conduct: 

Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly

infringing Plaintiffs’ rights under federal or state law in the Copyrighted

Recordings and any sound recording, whether now in existence or later

created, that is owned or controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary,

or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate

record label of Plaintiffs) (“Plaintiffs’ Recordings”), including without

limitation by using the Internet or any online media distribution system to

reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, to distribute (i.e.,

upload) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, or to make any of Plaintiffs’

Recordings available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a

lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs. Defendant also

shall destroy all copies of Plaintiffs’ Recordings that Defendant has

downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs’

authorization and shall destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings

transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant’s possession,

custody, or control.

Motion, at 8–9.

Federal copyright laws authorize injunctive relief for copyright infringement. 

Elektra Ent. Group, Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 393 (C.D.Cal. 2005 (citing 17 U.S.C. §

501, 502(a)). “A court may order a permanent injunction ‘to prevent or restrain infringement of

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

[the owner’s] copyright.’ Generally, a showing of copyright infringement liability and the threat

of future violations is sufficient to warrant a permanent injunction.” Sega Enterprises Ltd. v.

Maphia, 948 F. Supp. 923, 940 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 502) (finding access to

equipment that allowed defendant to continue to illegally download and distribute game

programs constituted a threat of continued violation); see also, MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak

Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v.

Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1073 (D. Ariz. 2006) (granting a permanent injunction upon entry

of default judgment against defendant in a copyright infringement action). 

Here, as discussed above, plaintiffs have established defendant’s liability for

copyright infringement. Furthermore, in proving up their claim, plaintiffs have established

defendant’s access to the online media distribution system through which the infringement

occurred. Infringement by such means exposes plaintiffs to “massive, repeated, and worldwide

infringement” of their copyrighted sound recordings. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 438 F.

Supp. 2d at 1073 (“When digital works are distributed via the internet, as in this case, every

downloader who receives one of the copyrighted works from Defendant is in turn capable of also

transmitting perfect copies of the works. Accordingly, the process is potentially exponential

rather than linear, threatening virtually unstoppable infringement of the copyright.”) (quoting A

& M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2001)). Monetary damages

cannot adequately compensate this widespread infringement. 

Finally, defendant’s failure to respond to this lawsuit suggests an indifference to

the unlawful nature of his infringing activity. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, this court

finds that the requested injunctive relief is appropriate and recommends that it be granted. 

B. Statutory Damages 

Where a plaintiff prevails in a copyright infringement case, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)

provides for an award of statutory damages in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000

for each infringement, as the court considers just. Moreover, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), a

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

court has discretion to increase the award of statutory damages to $150,000 per infringement

where an infringer’s conduct is found to be willful. “Statutory damages are particularly

appropriate in a case . . . in which defendant has failed to mount any defense or to participate in

discovery, thereby increasing the difficulty of ascertaining plaintiff’s actual damages.” Jackson

v. Sturkie, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

Here, plaintiffs seek the minimum amount ($750) for each alleged act of

infringement (eleven in total), for a total of $8,250.00. See Motion, at 8:17-20; Compl., Ex. A. 

The court finds that the amount of statutory damages sought by plaintiffs is reasonable and just.

C. Costs

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, courts have discretion to award “the recovery of full

costs and reasonable attorney fees” in cases of copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 505. Here,

plaintiffs seek costs in the amount of $420.00 for filing fees and service of process. The court

recommends that plaintiffs request for an award of costs in the amount of $420.00 be granted. 

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that

plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in

the amount of $8,250.00 in statutory damages and $420.00 in costs. A permanent injunction

should be granted against defendant as specified herein.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 4/18/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Elektra1651.def.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01651-JKS-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/18/07 Page 6 of 6