Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00712/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00712-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U2 HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a

California Corporation doing business as

CENTURY HOME ENTERTAINMENT

and TAI SENG VIDEO MARKETING,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-0712 PJH

v. ORDER ADJUDGING

CIVIL CONTEMPT

AVOPLEX CORP., a Hawaii Corporation

doing business as HKFLIX.COM and 

ANISAKI.COM, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order adjudging defendants in civil contempt

came on for a show cause hearing before this court on May 31, 2006. Plaintiff, U2 Home

Entertainment, Inc. (“U2") appeared through its counsel, Patricia DeFonte. Defendants

Avoplex Corporation (“Avoplex”) and Jeffrey Stockton (collectively “defendants”) appeared

through their counsel, Robert P. Andris. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS

plaintiff’s ex parte application and finds defendants in civil contempt of the Final

Judgement, Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction and Order entered by the court on

June 10, 2004 (“Permanent Injunction”), for the reasons stated at the hearing and

summarized as follows.

Preliminarily, the court notes that, plaintiff having demonstrated defendants’

contempt of the Permanent Injunction by clear and convincing evidence, and defendants’

having conceded as such in their papers and at the hearing, the issue before the court is

that of determining the proper amount of sanctions to be awarded. In making this

determination, the court is mindful that the nature of the contempt order sought is

Case 4:03-cv-00712-PJH Document 57 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

determined by the actual penalty sought to be imposed, not by the label designated by the

parties or the court. See Int’l Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838 (1994). If a

contempt order provides for a remedy that coerces the non-moving party into compliance

with the court order, or compensates the moving party for harms caused, it acts as a civil

contempt sanction. See id. at 827-29. An order with a punitive purpose, by contrast, acts a

criminal contempt sanction. Id. 

Here, plaintiff indicated – and defendants did not dispute – that it seeks civil

contempt sanctions. Accordingly, the court must fashion a sanctions award in an amount

sufficient to both compensate plaintiff for the harm occasioned by defendants’ unauthorized

sale of plaintiff’s audio-visual works, and/or to prevent future violations of the Permanent

Injunction. In making this determination, the court must examine: the harm to plaintiff; the

effectiveness of any proposed sanction; defendants’ financial situation; and the willfulness

of defendants’ violations. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258,

303-04 (1947).

Having done so, and with the above principles in mind, the court rules as follows:

1. Defendants are ordered to pay $1,000 in civil contempt sanctions for each

violation of paragraph 2 of the Permanent Injunction, in connection with the

eight audio-visual works expressly named in Exhibit A thereto. Defendants

are therefore ordered to pay a total of $8,000 in sanctions. 

2. Defendants are ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs in connection with

plaintiff’s prosecution of the instant motion, as contemplated by paragraph 7

of the Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a declaration with

respect to attorney’s fees and costs by June 7, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00712-PJH Document 57 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2