Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02047/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02047-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUNISE KEYS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-2047 SBA (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

By Order dated November 1, 2006, the Honorable Saundra

Brown Armstrong referred to me plaintiffs’ motion for entry of

default judgment against defendant. The following is my

report and recommendation for entry of default judgment.

On March 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint under the

Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. The

complaint alleges that defendant violated the Copyright Act at

least twenty-one separate times by downloading and/or

distributing twenty-one recordings without the permission or

consent of the plaintiffs. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 16. Plaintiffs

allege that proper notices of copyright for all twenty-one

recordings have been widely published, and that defendant’s

Case 4:06-cv-02047-SBA Document 20 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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

actions violate plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of reproduction

and distribution. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 18. Plaintiffs plead

defendant’s actions as willful and intentional, id. at ¶ 20,

and seek statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. section 504©),

injunctive relief pursuant to sections 502 and 503, and

reasonable costs pursuant to section 505. See id. at ¶¶ 21,

22. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the minimum amount of

statutory damages for each of the twenty-one violations

totaling $15,750.00, costs of litigation totaling $320.00, and

an injunction prohibiting defendant from present and future

infringement. See id. at ¶ 22; Motion for Entry of Default

Judgment, at 2. 

On May 29, 2006, plaintiffs had the complaint and related

papers personally served on defendant. Defendant failed to

answer the complaint or otherwise defend the action. On July

13, 2006, upon plaintiff’s request, the Clerk of this court

entered defendant’s default under Rule 55(a). By its default,

defendant is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded

averments of the complaint except those as to the amount of

damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Plaintiffs’ pleadings are

sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s violations of the

Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 102(a)(7), 501(a) & (b);

see also Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at

*1, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2004) 

A court may not enter a default judgment against an

unrepresented minor, an incompetent person, or a person in

military service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App.

U.S.C. § 521. Plaintiffs’ counsel has declared under penalty

Case 4:06-cv-02047-SBA Document 20 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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

of perjury that searches of various databases, including one

maintained by the Department of Defense, have disclosed that

defendant is not an infant, incompetent person, or a person in

military service. Decl. Of Thomas Kerr in Further Supp. of

Mot. for Def. J. (“Kerr Decl.”) ¶¶ 15, 16. 

Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the court may enter a default

judgment against a party against whom default has been

entered. The decision to grant or deny a default judgment

under Rule 55(b) is within the discretion of the court. Eitel

v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Although a

formal hearing is not required for a court to render a default

judgment, Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981), the

plaintiff has the burden of proving damages through testimony

or written affidavit. If damages are ascertainable, however,

there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Elias, 2004

WL 141959, at *4 (citing Ortiz-Gonzalez v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d

59, 63-64 (1st Cir. 2002)). 

Section 504(a) of the Copyright Act provides that a

copyright infringer may be liable for statutory damages under

section 504(c). Section 504(c) allows a victim under the

statute to elect to recover statutory damages for each

violation “in a sum of not less than $750 or no more than

$30,000 as the court considers just.”

 By virtue of her default, defendant has admitted to

twenty-one violations of the Copyright Act. Because

plaintiffs seek only the minimum statutory damages available

under the statute, the request is ascertainable and

reasonable. See id. I recommend that the court award

Case 4:06-cv-02047-SBA Document 20 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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

plaintiffs $750.00 for each of the twenty-one violations,

totaling $15,750.00.

In addition, section 505 of the Copyright Act allows the

court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel has declared under penalty of

perjury that, in pursuing this claim, plaintiffs incurred a

$250.00 filing fee and a $70.00 service of process fee, for a

total of $320.00. See Kerr Decl. ¶ 17. The request,

supported by counsel’s declaration, is reasonable. See Elias,

2004 WL 141959, at *5 (citing Discovery Comm., Inc. v. Animal

Plant, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1292 (C.D. Cal. 2001)). I

recommend the court award plaintiffs $320 in litigation costs.

Finally, section 502 of the Copyright Act grants to the

court the authority to issue injunctive relief to “prevent or

restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a).

“‘Generally, a showing of copyright infringement liability and

the threat of future violations is sufficient to warrant a

permanent injunction.’” Jackson v. Sturkie, 255 F. Supp. 2d

1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v.

MAPHIA, 948 F.Supp. 923, 940 (N.D. Cal. 1996)). As explained,

defendant’s admissions demonstrate twenty-one separate

violations of the Copyright Act. Moreover, there can be no

assurance that defendant will not continue to infringe

plaintiffs’ materials, be they now in existence or later

created. See Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *4-*5 (granting

injunctive relief with respect to plaintiffs’ existing

materials and those created in the future). I therefore

recommend that the court grant plaintiffs’ request for

Case 4:06-cv-02047-SBA Document 20 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

injunctive relief.

The evidence before me is sufficient to negate the need

for an evidentiary hearing. For the foregoing reasons, I

recommend that judgment be entered in plaintiffs’ favor

against defendant for a total award of $16,070.00. This

amount includes $15,750.00 in statutory damages and $320.00 in

litigation costs. In addition, I recommend that the court

grant plaintiffs the injunctive relief sought in their

complaint. 

Dated: November 7, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT\DEF.JUDG.ORDER.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-02047-SBA Document 20 Filed 11/07/06 Page 5 of 5