Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01037-0/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 - 07cv1037

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARISTA RECORDS LLC, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 1037 JM (POR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

vs. FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

JASON IBANEZ,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs Arista Records LC, Fonovisa Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Bros.

Records Inc., Priority Records LLC, and Capitol Records, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for

entry of default judgment against defendant Jason Ibanez in the amount of $5,670 and to permanently

enjoin him from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Defendant has not appeared

in this action. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral

argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court enters default judgment against Defendant in the

total amount of $5,670 and grants the motion for permanent injunction. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2007, Plaintiffs commenced this copyright infringement action against Defendant

alleging that he violated Plaintiffs’ copyrights by using an online media distribution system to

download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution copyrighted materials. (Compl. ¶14).

Defendant has been served with the summons and complaint but has yet to appear in this action.

On September 24, 2007, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant. Plaintiffs now

Case 3:07-cv-01037-JM-POR Document 8 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07cv1037

move for a default judgment in the amount of $5,250 in damages and $420 in costs, and a permanent

injunction to enjoin Defendant from any future conduct that infringes their copyrights. Defendant

has not responded to the motion for default judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) provides, in pertinent part, that after entry of default,

“the party entitled to a judgment by default, shall apply to the court therefor.” Ordinarily, the default

itself established the defendant’s liability. “Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint relating to liability are taken as true,” but not allegations as to the amount of damages.

Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d. 1319, 1323 (3d Cir. 1983);

TeleVideo Sys. Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d. 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1994). The amount of damages may

be determined from the allegations of the complaint although those allegations are not controlling.

Dundee, 722 F.2d. at 1323-24. Where the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees by either

contract or statute, the court will determine the amount to be awarded. James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307,

311 (3d Cir. 1993).

The granting or denying of a default judgment is within the court’s sound discretion. Draper

v. Combs, 792 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1986). The following factors are considered in determining whether

to grant a default judgment: (1) the substantive merits of plaintiff’s claim; (2) the sufficiency of the

complaint; (3) the amount of money at stake; (4) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff if relief is

denied; (5) the possibility of dispute asto any material factsin the case; (6) whether excusable neglect

caused the default, and (7) policy considerations militating in favor of considering cases on their

meritsrather than resolving matters through default judgment procedures. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, the complaint’s allegations establish that Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of default

judgment on their claims for copyright infringement because Defendant infringed Plaintiffs’ exclusive

rights under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501(a)-(b). Plaintiffs have demonstrated

ownership of the copyrights at issue and that Defendant, without Plaintiffs’ permission, used an online

media distribution system to download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution the

recordings. (Compl. ¶¶12-18). Consequently, the court concludes that the complaint’s allegations

Case 3:07-cv-01037-JM-POR Document 8 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07cv1037

adequately establish liability on the copyright claim. 

The only other issues concern the amount of damages and possibility of injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages under § 504 of the Copyright Act in the total amount

of $5,250, an award of costs in the amount of $420, and to permanently enjoin Defendant from

directly or indirectly infringing their copyrights.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, which provides that the

copyright owner may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved

in the action in a sum of not less than $750 nor more than $30,000. 17 U.S.C. §504(c); Los Angeles

News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998), cert.denied 525 U.S.

1141 (1999) (“a plaintiff may recover statutory damages whether or not there is adequate evidence

of the actual damages suffered by plaintiff or the profits reaped by defendant, in order to sanction and

vindicate the statutory policy of discouraging infringement” (internal citations and quotations

omitted)). Plaintiffs seek the statutory minimum of $750 for each of the seven copyrights violated

by Defendant. The court finds this amount reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Plaintiffs also seek an award of costs in the amount of $420 (for filing fees and cost of service

of process) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The court finds this amount reasonable and appropriate under

the circumstances.

Finally, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendant from violating their copyrights

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) (the court may grant “final injunctions on such terms as it may deem

reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright”). A party seeking a permanent

injunction must establish the requisite success on the merits and irreparable harm to warrant

injunctive relief. Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). As

noted by Plaintiffs, “[i]n copyright cases, irreparable harm is presumed on a showing of a reasonable

likelihood of success on the merits, and, thus, ‘a showing of copyright infringement liability and the

threat of future violations is sufficient to warrant a permanent injunction.’” (See Mot. at 9 (quoting

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F.Supp. 923, 940 (N.D. Cal. 1996)).) Here, Plaintiffs have

adequately demonstrated success on the merits and that continued violations of their copyrights would

cause them irreparable harm. Further, entry of a permanent injunction is consistent with the goals of

Case 3:07-cv-01037-JM-POR Document 8 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 5
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 - 07cv1037

§ 502 of the Copyright Act to protect the public’s interest in upholding copyright protections. See

Autoskill Inc. v. National Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1499 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 916 (1993). A review of the authorities submitted by Plaintiffs indicates that courts frequently

grant permanent injunctions by means of default judgment where a defendant infringes copyrights and

then fails to appear in an action to give assurances that such activity would cease. See Jackson v.

Sturke, 255 F.Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Pepsi Co., Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.

2d 1172, 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2002). In sum, the court concludes, in light of the scope and nature of

Defendant’s infringement, that granting the requested permanent injunctive relief will foster public

interest in upholding copyright protection and protect Plaintiffs’ copyright interests.

In sum, the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment against Defendant Ibanez and in

favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $5,670. 

IT IS ALSO ORDERED:

Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs’

rights under federal or state law in the following copyrighted sound recordings:

1. “My Way,” on album “My Way,” by artist “Usher” (SR# 257-730);

2. “Amigo Bronco,” on album “20 Exitos,” by artist “Bronco” (SR # 256-014);

3. “I Gave You Power,” on album “It was Written,” by artist “Nas” (SR# 220-016);

4. “Emotion,” on album “Survivor,” by artist “Destiny’s Child” (SR# 289-199);

5. “Otherside,” on album “Californication,” by artist “Red Hot Chili Peppers” (SR# 174-922);

6. “Hello,” on album “War & Peace: Vol. 2,” by artist “Ice Cube” (SR# 287-151);

7. “Behind the Sun,” on album “The Uplift Mofo Party Plan,” by artist “Red Hot Chili Peppers”

(SR# 93-015);

and in any other sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or

controlled by the Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs)

(“Plaintiffs’ Recordings”), including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media

distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, to distribute (i.e.,

upload) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, or to make any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings available for

distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs.

Case 3:07-cv-01037-JM-POR Document 8 Filed 01/04/08 Page 4 of 5
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 - 07cv1037

Defendant shall also destroy all copies of Plaintiffs’ Recordings that defendant has downloaded onto

any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs’ authorization and shall destroy all copies of those

downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant’s possession,

custody, or control.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01037-JM-POR Document 8 Filed 01/04/08 Page 5 of 5