Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00363/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00363-0/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Broadcast Music Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Moonshine Group LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-0363-PHX-DKD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. 

Because only the Plaintiffs in this defaulted action have made an appearance and 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, there is no consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction from any of the defaulted parties. Accordingly, the undersigned submits this 

Report and Recommendation to the Presiding Phoenix District Judge wherein full 

jurisdiction lies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

 Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ Motion, the exhibits thereto, the record 

in this matter, the Clerk’s entry of default, as well as Plaintiffs’ December 2, 2015 

Supplemental Memo which addressed the Court’s concern regarding whether entry of 

judgment against the defaulted individual Defendants was appropriate (See Order at Doc. 

26 and Plaintiffs’ responsive Memo at Doc. 28), as well as the December 8, 2015 

telephonic hearing which confirmed that Plaintiffs’ counsel intended to bill and to be paid 

Case 2:15-cv-00363-DKD Document 29 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

by his clients for the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested, the undersigned concludes 

and thus recommends that Plaintiffs are entitled to Entry of Judgment as follows: 

 1. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher 

Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, 

statutory damages in the amount of $28,000.00 ($4,000 per infringement for each of the 

seven willful copyright infringements committed by Defendants). 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). 

 2. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher 

Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, 

$19,565.00 in attorneys’ fees, as this amount as supported by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s 

Affidavit demonstrating that his hourly fee is consistent with the prevailing market rate 

and that the specific time entries were for tasks reasonably incurred. 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

 3. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher 

Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, 

$875.60 in taxable costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

 4. Plaintiffs shall have and recover statutory interest on all amounts herein, 

from the date of entry of this Judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

 5. Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron 

Levine, and Lars S. Havens, and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, 

and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are 

hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from infringing, in any manner, the 

copyrighted musical compositions licensed by Broadcast Music, Inc. Information 

pertaining to said, licensed musical compositions can be found at www.bmi.com. 17 

U.S.C. § 502. 

 6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction for purpose of enforcing this Judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Default Judgment (Doc. 24). 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

Case 2:15-cv-00363-DKD Document 29 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 8th day of December, 2015. 

cc: SRB 

Case 2:15-cv-00363-DKD Document 29 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3