Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04131/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04131-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

Defendants have not appeared herein, nor have defendants filed opposition.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SIMPLE COMMUNICATIONS, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-07-4131 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment, filed February 28,

2008. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of plaintiff’s application,1 the

Court finds the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

April 4, 2008, and rules as follows.

In its complaint, plaintiff alleges it owns a copyright in certain text on a website

plaintiff operates and in the source code associated with its website, and that it owns rights

in both registered and unregistered “service marks” used in connection with its website. 

(See Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also alleges that Levon Gasparian, Alexei Borisov, and Airon

Corporation (collectively, “Airon”) “copied” plaintiff’s protected matter and have included

such matter on websites owned by Airon. (See Compl. ¶ 19, 26-27.) Plaintiff further

alleges that defendants herein, Simple Communications and William Travis Sullivan

(collectively, “Simple”), have “contributed to the illegal or infringing conduct of [Airon].” 

(See Compl. ¶ 39.)

Case 3:07-cv-04131-MMC Document 34 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 2
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

If the matter against Airon resolves by way of a settlement that does not purport to

determine the liability of Airon, plaintiff likewise may renotice the instant application or file

an amended application.

2

In a separate and related action, Pacific Information Resources, Inc. v. Musselman,

C-06-2306 MMC, plaintiff has alleged infringement and related claims against Airon; Airon

has appeared therein, and has argued during the course of the proceedings that its

websites are not infringing in nature.

In the instant application, plaintiff offers evidence that Simple “provides web hosting

services to Airon.” (See Trope Decl., filed February 28, 2008, ¶ 3.) Additionally, plaintiff

offers declarations from two experts, one of whom opines that the websites operated by

Airon are infringing in nature, (see Hadas Decl., filed February 28, 2008), and the other of

whom opines that Airon has realized $19,001,250 from Airon’s allegedly infringing

websites. (See Bond Decl., filed February 28, 2008.) In reliance on such declarations,

plaintiff argues it is entitled to an award of damages against Simple in the amount of

$19,001,250, i.e., the revenue allegedly earned by Airon, as well as injunctive relief to

preclude Simple from, inter alia, hosting Airon’s websites. In short, the relief sought against

Simple herein is wholly derivative of plaintiff’s infringement claims against Airon.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds plaintiff’s application to be premature. 

See, e.g., Harrell v. DCS Equipment Leasing Corp., 951 F. 2d 1453, 1458-59 (5th Cir.

1992) (holding, where default judgments had been entered against corporations based on

corporations’ being vicariously liable for actions of officer, and officer later found not liable

for any wrongdoing, default judgments against corporation properly set aside).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application is hereby DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff’s

renoticing the instant application or filing an amended application after the liability of Airon

is determined in the related action.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04131-MMC Document 34 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2