Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03457/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03457-3/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

UMG RECORDINGS, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ABELINA SANCHEZ,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-3457 JSW (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST

DEFENDANT 

By Order dated November 28, 2006, the Honorable Jeffrey

S. White referred to me plaintiffs’ motion for default

judgment against defendant. The following is my report and

recommendation as to plaintiffs’ motion.

On May 30, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint under the

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

allege that defendant violated the Copyright Act at least

eleven separate times by downloading and/or distributing

eleven recordings without the permission or consent of the

plaintiffs. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13 and Exh. A; see also Mot. for

Def. J. at 1.

Plaintiffs plead proper notices of copyright for all

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28 1 Service was also effected by mail on June 29, 2006. 

See Civil Docket Entry No. 5.

2

eleven recordings, Compl. ¶ 14, and that defendant’s actions

violate plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of reproduction and

distribution. Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs claim defendant’s

actions are willful and intentional. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs

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

reasonable costs pursuant to section 505. Compl. ¶ 16.

Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief pursuant to sections

502 and 503. Compl. ¶ 17. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the

minimum amount of statutory damages for each of the eleven

violations totaling $8,250.00, costs of litigation totaling

$420.00, and an injunction prohibiting defendant from present

and future infringement. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17; Mot. for Def. J.

at 4,7. 

On June 25, 2006, the complaint and related papers were

served on defendant by substituted service.1

 Decl. Of Thomas

Kerr in Further Supp. of Mot. for Def. J. (“Kerr Decl.”) ¶ 10;

Civil Docket Entry No. 5. Defendant failed to answer the

complaint or otherwise defend the action. On August 28, 2006,

upon plaintiffs’ request, the Clerk of this court entered

defendant’s default under Rule 55(a). The clerk’s entry of

default judgement was served by mail on September 11, 2006. 

See Civil Docket Entry No. 8. Defendant failed to respond to

the plaintiffs’ motion and did not appear at a duly noticed

January 24, 2007 hearing on the matter. By her default,

defendant is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded

averments of the complaint except those as to the amount of

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28

3

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. On January 17, 2006, plaintiffs’ settlement

representative spoke with the defendant. Decl. of Morgan

Kukal in Further Supp. of Mot. for Def. J. (“Kukal Decl.”) ¶

4. Defendant told plaintiff’s representative that her child

was responsible for the copyright infringements, and discussed

settlement options. Kukal Decl. ¶ 4. On March 14, 2006 and

September 21, 2006, in a phone calls between defendant’s

husband and plaintiffs’ representative, defendant’s husband

stated his wife was in Mexico. Kukal Decl. ¶¶ 5,6. 

Plaintiff’s representative declared under penalty of perjury

that based on his conversations with defendant and her

husband, he believes the defendant is not a minor,

incompetent, or in the military. Kukal Decl. ¶ 8. Although

unable to confirm defendant’s military status on the current

public database, Supp. Brief in Supp. of Mot. for Def. J. at

1, search of an older database revealed no military

connection. Kerr Decl. ¶ 15. The court is satisfied with

this showing. 

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

judgment against a party against whom default has been

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28

4

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

eleven 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 plaintiffs $750.00 for each

of the eleven violations, totaling $8,250.00.

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

$350.00 filing fee and a $70.00 service of process fee, for a

total of $420.00. Kerr Decl. ¶ 16. The request, supported by

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28

5

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 $420.00 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)). Defendant has

admitted eleven separate violations of the Copyright Act and,

there can be no assurance that defendant will not continue to

infringe plaintiffs’ copyrighted 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 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 $8,670.00. This amount

includes $8,250.00 in statutory damages and $420.00 in

litigation costs. In addition, I recommend that the court

///

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28

6

grant plaintiffs the injunctive relief sought in their

complaint. 

Dated: January 24, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\UMG Recordings v. Sanchez\Rep.Rec.Granting.DEF.JUDG.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-03457-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/24/07 Page 6 of 6