Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02485/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02485-0/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 - 06cv2486 - B - NLS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTERSCOPE RECORDS, UMG

RECORDING, INC., and ATLANTIC

RECORDING CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

CIV. NO. 06cv2485-B (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,

VACATING CLERK’S ENTRY

OF DEFAULT AND GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT

vs.

YOLANA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

Interscope Records, UMG Recordings, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corp.

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move the Court for entry of default judgment against Yolanda

Rodriguez (“Defendant”). Because the Court finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently

plead a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court DENIES the motion, VACATES

the Clerk’s entry of default and GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend and re-serve the

complaint within thirty (30 days) of the date of this order

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant on November 14, 2007, alleging

Case 3:06-cv-02485-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 08/17/07 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 - 06cv2486 - B - NLS 

copyright infringement. According to the complaint, Defendant used and continued to use an

online media distribution system to download Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings and

distribute and/or make them available for distribution to the public. Defendant was served

with the summons and complaint by personal service on December 14, 2006. Plaintiff did

not file a responsive pleading and on April 13, 2007, the Clerk entered default. Notice of

entry of default was served on Defendant by mail on April 18, 2007. Plaintiffs then filed the

instant motion for entry of default judgment on July 19, 2007.

III. STANDARD OF LAW

It is within the district court’s discretion whether or not to enter default judgment. 

Albade v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Seven factors are generally

considered before entering default judgment: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff,

(2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum

of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)

whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy . . . favoring

decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 -1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

IV. ANALYSIS

In considering Plaintiffs’ instant motion for default judgment, the Court has reviewed 

the complaint and the circumstances of the default according to the factors set forth in 

Eitel. The Court finds that entry of default judgment is not presently warranted because the

complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The recent Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955

(2007), sets forth a “plausibility” standard which a complaint must meet to sufficiently state a

claim. “ [A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1964 -1965 (2007). “Factual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. 

As such, Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their

allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare

Case 3:06-cv-02485-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 08/17/07 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 - 06cv2486 - B - NLS 

conclusory statement that on “information and belief” Defendant has downloaded, distributed

and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have

presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. 

The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement

without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds

that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and

entry of default judgment is not warranted.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment and

VACATES the Court Clerk’s entry of Default. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to

amend the complaint. Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to

amend the complaint and serve it on Defendant. Defendant shall then have twenty (20) days

from the date of service to answer or otherwise file a responsive pleading. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Nita L. Stormes

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:06-cv-02485-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 3