Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02401/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02401-0/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 Defendant Glenn Beddow was dismissed from this action on February 1, 2006. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STREET TALK TUNES, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-2401 FCD JFM

vs.

VACAVILLE RECREATION

CORPORATION, and SANDY ERLE,1

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment came on regularly for hearing

April 13, 2006. Forrest Plant, Jr. appeared for plaintiffs. No appearance was made for

defendants Vacaville Recreation Corporation or Sandy Erle. Upon review of the motion and the

supporting documents, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing

therefor, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS:

This is an action for infringement of copyright by unauthorized public

performances of six songs by defendants on September 30, 2005, at their place of business

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 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

known as Vacaville Skating Center located at 551 Davis Street, Vacaville, California. 

Defendants own, operate, control, manage and maintain the Vacaville Skating Center.

I. Request for Default Judgment

The complaint in this matter was personally served upon defendants December 7,

2005. Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985)

(default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendants have not filed an answer. The

clerk of the court entered default against defendants on January 27, 2006. Plaintiff's present

motion for entry of default judgment were served by mail on defendants at their last known

address. Defendants filed no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment and entered

no appearance at the hearing.

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). Entry of default judgment is proper where, as in the present case, the facts established by

the default support the causes of action plead in the complaint. The complaint and the affidavits

filed in support of the motion for entry of default judgment also support the finding that plaintiffs

are entitled to the relief requested in the prayer for default judgment, which does not differ in

kind from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832 (1974). 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). Plaintiff’s are entitled to entry of default judgment. See Controversy Music v.

Shiferaw, 2003 Copyright L.Dec. (CCH) ¶ 28,651 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

II. Relief Requested

A. Injunctive Relief

Title 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) permits the court to grant final injunctions "to prevent

and restrain infringement of a copyright." The court in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Niro's Palace,

Inc., 619 F.Supp. 958, 963 (N.D.Ill.1985), held:

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 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

 Although ASCAP is not a party hereto, courts have recognized that plaintiffs are 2

representative of all of ASCAP’s members. See Pedrosillo Music, Inc. v. Radio Musical, Inc., 815

F.Supp 511, 516 (1993); Southern Nights Music Co. v. Moses, 669 F.Supp. 305 (C.D. Cal. 1987).

 The court may grant a permanent injunction to plaintiffs even though it enjoins defendants 3

from infringing any of plaintiffs' copyrighted works, existing or created in the future, including, but

not limited to, those listed in Schedule A to the complaint. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 45 F.Supp.2d

1345, 1347-48 (S.D.Fla.1999); Princeton Univ. Press v. Michigan Document Serv., Inc., 99 F.3d

1381, 1392-93 (6th Cir.1996) (holding the weight of authority supports the extension of injunctive

relief to future works).

3

A permanent injunction is especially appropriate where a threat of

continuing infringement exists . . . The threat of continuing

infringement is substantial in the present case. Niro's provided

unauthorized performances of copyrighted musical compositions

on its premises after receiving oral and written notices of

infringement and demands to stop such infringement from BMI.

This behavior indicates a willful disregard of copyrights held by

BMI and should be permanently enjoined.

Id.

In this case, plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence that defendants have

continued to infringe the copyrights of certain musical compositions after repeated notice and

requests that they stop and defendants have failed to provide any evidence proving

non-infringement. Accordingly, defendants should be enjoined from performing any ASCAP2

songs without prior authorization.3

B. Statutory Damages.

Title 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) states that a plaintiff may elect to receive an award of

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

the plaintiff's actual damages and the defendant's profits. In addition, "[i]n a case where the

copyright owner sustains the burden of proving . . . that infringement was committed willfully,

the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than

$150,000." 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

Where defendants have ignored or disregarded notices of the need for licensing,

willful infringement has been found. In International Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk, 855 F.2d 375,

380 (7th Cir.1988), the court upheld the district court's finding of willful infringement due to

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 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

substantial evidence that the defendant repeatedly ignored notices of the infringement. The trial

court stated: 

In the present case, defendant violated the copyright laws despite

ASCAP's repeated efforts--by letter, telephone, and personal

visits--to license defendant's establishment. Defendant's initial

refusal may have come from ignorance of the intricacies of

copyright law. However, defendant certainly came to understand

his obligations under the law. Yet, his answer, time and time

again, was essentially--"Sue me. I am never going to join." Given

this cavalier attitude, the defendant's infringing conduct can only

be described as willful. 

International Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk, 665 F.Supp. 652, 659 (N.D.Ill.1987)($1,500.00 per

infringement); see also Chi-Boy Music v. Charlie Club, Inc., 930 F.2d 1224, 1227-28 (7th

Cir.1991) (approximately $3,100.00 per infringement).

The evidence presented by plaintiffs in this case indicates that defendants willfully

and intentionally violated plaintiffs' copyrights. Despite repeated attempts by plaintiffs to get

defendants to stop using the copyrighted materials or to take a license for their use, defendants

persisted in playing the musical compositions and ignoring plaintiffs' requests. Defendants have

failed to present any evidence refuting this argument.

The court therefore finds an increase in statutory damages due to willful

infringement to be appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiffs' request that a statutory award in the

amount of $1,250.00 per infringement is granted, for a total award of $7,500.00. 

C. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Title 17 U.S.C. § 505 provides that the court "in its discretion may allow the

recovery of full costs . . . [and] may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party

as part of the costs." Plaintiffs request that the court award $663.00 in attorneys' fees and

$374.30 in costs in this action totaling $1,037.30. The Ninth Circuit has identified several

"[c]onsiderations which justify the denial of [attorney's] fees [to prevailing plaintiffs]," including

(1) "the defendant's status as [an] innocent, rather than willful or knowing, infringer," (2) "the

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 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

plaintiff's prosecution of the case in bad faith," and (3) "the defendant's good faith attempt to

avoid infringement." McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F.2d 316, 323 (9th Cir.1987).

The court finds that in light of these factors and defendants' willful and intentional

infringement of the copyrights, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs is

appropriate. As the court in Broadcast Music, Inc., 619 F.Supp. at 963-64 (citations omitted),

stated: 

A plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and attorney's fees for willful

copyright infringement.... In the present case, an award of costs and

reasonable attorney's fees is justified because if Niro's had heeded

BMI's warnings either to enter a license agreement or to stop

playing copyrighted music, this litigation would have been wholly

unnecessary. In addition, Niro's repeatedly rebuffed offers to

resolve this dispute prior to the commencement of litigation. . . .

Thus, Niro's was not an innocent infringer, and costs and

reasonable attorney's fees are appropriate. 

Id. See also Rilting Music, Inc. v. Speakeasy Enterprises, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 550, 558 (S.D.Ohio

1988)(awarded $3,000.00 in attorneys fees); Hulex Music v. Santy, 698 F.Supp.1024, 1032

(D.N.H.1988)(awarded $7,612.50 in attorneys fees). Accordingly, plaintiffs' request for

reasonable attorneys fees and costs totaling $1,037.30 should be granted.

A proposed judgment has been lodged by plaintiff and is approved as to form and

substance. (Docket No. 19.)

In view of the foregoing findings, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ February 9, 2006 motion for entry of default judgment be granted;

2. Defendants Vacaville Recreation Corporation and Sandy Erle, and any persons

acting by or on behalf of defendants, be enjoined from performing publicly, or causing or

permitting to be performed publicly, any copyrighted musical compositions owned by any of the

plaintiffs, and any other copyrighted musical compositions in the repertory of the American

Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) at any establishment owned,

controlled, operated or managed by defendants, without permission obtained directly from the

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 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

copyright owners of such compositions in advance of such performances, or license from

ASCAP.

3. Plaintiffs be granted $7,500.00 in statutory damages and $1,037.30 in attorneys

fees and costs, for a total judgment in the amount of $8,537.30.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 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.” The parties are advised 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: April 18, 2006. 

001; streetalk.def

Case 2:05-cv-02401-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 6