Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03196/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03196-4/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1Diem Chau Video was a party to an earlier consent decree and final judgment.

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U2 HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 THANH VIDEO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-03196 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This is a copyright infringement and false designation case involving a distributor of

Chinese films and television shows in the United States and various bootleggers of said films

and television shows. Previously, the Court entered final judgment on two separate

occasions where plaintiff reached a settlement with some of the defendants. Now pending

before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the remaining defendants:

Chieu Nhu Video & Pure Water and Tru Huy Nguyen, individually and doing business as

Chieu Nhu Video & Pure Water (collectively “Pure Water defendants”); and Thuan Tran,

individually and doing business as Diem Chau Video.1 None of the defaulting defendants

has filed an opposition here. After carefully considering plaintiff’s submissions, the Court

deems oral argument unnecessary pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), and plaintiff’s motion for

default is hereby GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-03196-CRB Document 84 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

All defendants have been served with the Summons and Verified Complaint but have

not responded. On September 28, 2005, default was entered against the Pure Water

defendants. On December 5, 2005, default was entered against Thuan Tran. None of the

defendants submitted an opposition to this motion for default judgment nor communicated

with the Court in any manner. Therefore, for purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as

true all allegations in the Complaint relating to liability. See TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v.

Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). 

I. Remedy

The Complaint asserts that each group of defendants were engaged in the unlawful

business of manufacturing and distributing bootlegged copies of plaintiff’s exclusive

programs. Plaintiff seeks (1) a permanent injunction, (2) statutory damages and

enhancements for willfulness under the Copyright Act, (3) costs and attorney’s fees under the

Copyright Act, and (4) the exoneration of the $5,000 bond posted previously. Plaintiff has

submitted evidence that 19 registered, copyrighted programs were infringed upon by each

group of defendants.

A. Permanent Injunction

The Court hereby permanently enjoins all defaulting defendants and each of their

respective agents, principals, servants, employees, successors and assigns from:

(A) Directly or indirectly infringing the copyrights of plaintiff, in any manner, and

from causing, contributing to or participating in, the unauthorized duplication

of plaintiff’s copyrighted audio-visual works, and from offering for rent or

sale, selling, or distributing to the public any such unauthorized duplications;

(B) Shipping, delivering, holding for sale, distributing, returning, transferring or

otherwise moving or disposing of in any manner audio-visual products

containing content infringing on plaintiff’s copyrights in its programs and/or

falsely bearing plaintiff’s trademarks or trade names or any reproduction,

counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of same;

Case 3:05-cv-03196-CRB Document 84 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

(C) Importing, making, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, renting,

leasing and/or otherwise trafficking, including but not limited to over the

Internet, in unauthorized copies of audio-visual content and/or products the

copyrights to which are owned or licensed by plaintiff;

(D) Offering to do, or assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business

entity in engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in

subparagraphs (A) through (C).

B. Damages

The Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to select between actual and statutory

damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiff has chosen statutory damages, which permit an award

from $750 to $30,000 per infringement, to be determined “as the Court considers just.” Id. §

504(c)(1); see also Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The

court has wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages to be awarded,

constrained only by the specified maxima and minima.”). In addition, if the Court finds that

infringement was willful, it may, in its discretion, enhance damages to $150,000 per

infringement. Plaintiff requests damages of $150,000 per infringement, which amounts to

$2.85 million against each group of defendants.

In the copyright infringement context, “willful” means acting “with knowledge that

[one’s] conduct constitutes copyright infringement.” See Columbia Pictures Television v.

Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284, 293 (9th Cir. 1997), rev'd on other

grounds by Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 1279 (1998); see also

Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04[B][3][a]. The Court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated

that defendants willfully infringed upon their copyrights under this definition. Therefore, the

Court declines to award enhanced damages. Plaintiff has, however, shown defendants’

conduct to be deplorable, and therefore the Court awards the statutory maximum amount of

$30,000 per infringement. Accordingly, the Pure Water defendants are jointly and severally

liable to plaintiff for 19 separate acts of copyright infringement totaling $570,000. Thuan

Tran is also liable for 19 separate acts of copyright infringement totaling $570,000. 

Case 3:05-cv-03196-CRB Document 84 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3196\order re default judgment.wpd 4

II. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The Copyright Act permits a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney’s

fees and costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505. Plaintiff argues that such an award is particularly

appropriate in cases where, as here, a defendant willfully infringes and then defaults when

litigation commences, forcing a plaintiff to incur costs without any certainty that any

damages will ultimately be recovered. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court awards

plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff’s counsel is therefore entitled to

attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs in the amount of $5,127 against the Pure Water

defendants, jointly and severally, and $1,809 against Thuan Tran. Plaintiff’s counsel shall

file a bill of costs to the clerk of the court detailing any taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1920.

III. Exoneration of Bond

Finally, plaintiff’s bond of $5,000, posted to acquire a temporary restraining order

against defendants, is hereby exonerated and released. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is entitled to (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from infringing on

plaintiff’s copyrighted works as detailed above; (2) damages of $570,000 against the Pure

Water defendants, jointly and severally, and $570,000 against Thuan Tran; (3) attorney’s fees

and costs in the amount of $5,127 against the Pure Water defendants, jointly and severally,

and $1,809 against Thuan Tran; and (4) the exoneration and release of the $5,000 bond. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03196-CRB Document 84 Filed 06/08/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3196\order re default judgment.wpd 5

Case 3:05-cv-03196-CRB Document 84 Filed 06/08/06 Page 5 of 5