Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01642/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01642-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a )

Delaware corporation; INTERSCOPE ) 2:06-cv-1642-GEB-EFB

RECORDS, a California general )

partnership; SONY BMG MUSIC )

ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general )

partnership; and ATLANTIC ) ORDER

RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware )

corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

LENORA CHRISTINE BABB, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On February 15, 2007, the parties filed a “Stipulation to

Judgment and Permanent Injunction” (“Stipulation”). The Stipulation

reveals the parties have settled this action. The Stipulation does

not indicate that Defendant will not abide by the parties’ agreed upon

settlement, such that a permanent injunction and retention of

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is required. 

Case 2:06-cv-01642-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court

should [grant a permanent injunction and] exercise continuing

jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int'l,

Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “According to well

established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent

injunction must satisfy [the injunctive relief] test before a court

may grant such relief.” Ebay v. Mercexchange, --- U.S. ---, 126 S.

Ct. 1837, 2006 WL 1310670, at *2 (May 15, 2006). The injunctive

relief test includes an inquiry into “whether future violations are

sufficiently likely to warrant an injunction.” U.S. v. Laerdal Mfg.

Corp., 73 F.3d 852, 856 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the parties have not

shown the need for a permanent injunction. Therefore, the Court will

not enter the permanent injunction the parties proposed. Further, the

proposed injunction provision that prohibits Defendant from making

“any public statements that are inconsistent with any term of the

Stipulation to Judgment and Permanent Injunction” lacks the required

specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 because the word

“public” is unclear.

Since the Stipulation reveals the parties’ intent to have

judgment entered, notwithstanding the decision against issuance of

permanent injunction, the Clerk of the Court will be instructed to

enter judgment. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th

Cir. 1980) (indicating an order could issue even where the parties

fail to formally request it). 

Judgment is to be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, as

follows: Defendant shall pay to Plaintiffs in settlement of this

action the total sum of $4080.00, and shall pay Plaintiffs’ costs of

Case 2:06-cv-01642-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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

suit (complaint filing fee and service of process fee) in the amount

of $420.00. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01642-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/23/07 Page 3 of 3