Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02086/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02086-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2086 FCD KJM

vs.

MARIO RAMIREZ,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was submitted on the papers. Upon

review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, and good cause appearing

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

The complaint in this matter was served upon defendant and proof of service was

filed October 23, 2006. Cf. Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325,

1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). The

Clerk of the Court entered default against defendant on November 14, 2006. Plaintiff's present

motion for entry of default judgment was served by mail on defendant at defendant’s last known

address.

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, 560 (9th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-02086-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2

1977). Entry of default judgment is proper where, as in the present case, the facts established by

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

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

is 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 & n.2 (9th Cir.

1974). There are no policy considerations to preclude the entry of default judgment of the type

requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (enumerating factors to

be considered). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for entry

of default judgment be GRANTED. A proposed judgment was filed by plaintiff on January 5,

2007 (docket no. 15, Exhibit 3) and is approved as to form and substance. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned

to this matter, 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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 9, 2007.

006

warner.def

Case 2:06-cv-02086-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2