Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01023/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01023-2/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 On June 25, 2007, I issued and served a draft of this

Report and Recommendation as a tentative decision and invited

either party to request a hearing if it wished to dispute the

tentative ruling. Neither side requested a hearing. 

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 1, 2007, is

VACATED

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRIORITY RECORDS, LLC, et

al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

LUIS TABORA,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-1023 PJH (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

By Order dated May 23, 2007, the Honorable Phyllis J.

Hamilton referred to me plaintiffs’ motion for entry of

default judgment against defendant. The following is my

report and recommendation for entry of default judgment.1

On February 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a complaint under

the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. The

complaint alleges that defendant violated the Copyright Act at

least six separate times by downloading and/or distributing

Case 4:07-cv-01023-PJH Document 22 Filed 07/11/07 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

six recordings without the permission or consent of the

plaintiffs. Compl. ¶ 10, Exh. A. Plaintiffs allege that

proper notices of copyright for all six recordings have been

widely published, and that defendant’s actions violate

plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. 

Compl. ¶¶ 13, 12. Plaintiffs allege that defendant acted

willfully and intentionally, id. at ¶ 14, and seek statutory

damages under 17 U.S.C. section 504(c), injunctive relief

pursuant to sections 502 and 503, and reasonable costs

pursuant to section 505. See id. at ¶¶ 15, 16. 

On February 27, 2007, plaintiffs had the complaint and

related papers personally served on defendant. See Docket No.

5. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise

defend the action. On April 11, 2007, upon plaintiff’s

request, the Clerk entered defendant’s default under Rule

55(a). See Docket No. 8. By his default, defendant is deemed

to have admitted the well-pleaded averments of the complaint

except those as to the amount of damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d). Plaintiffs’ pleadings are sufficient to demonstrate

defendant’s violations of the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§

106, 102(a)(7), 501(a) & (b); see also UMG Recordings, Inc. v.

Sanchez, 2007 WL 485955, at *1 (N.D. Cal.); Sony Music Entm't,

Inc. v. Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *1, *3 (C.D. Cal.) 

A court may not enter a default judgment against an

unrepresented minor, an incompetent person, or a person in

military service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App.

U.S.C. § 521. Plaintiffs’ counsel has declared under penalty

of perjury that a search of the SmartLinx Person Summary

Case 4:07-cv-01023-PJH Document 22 Filed 07/11/07 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

Report database of Lexis Nexis determined that defendant was

born in June, 1967, and thus is not a minor. Decl. Of Thomas

Kerr in Further Supp. of Mot. for Def. J. (“Kerr Decl.”), ¶

15. Plaintiff’s counsel is also informed and believes that

defendant is not incompetent. Id. Additionally, plaintiff’s

counsel conducted a search through the Department of Defense -

Manpower Data Center, and determined that defendant is not

serving in the military. Id. at ¶ 16. 

Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the court may enter a default

judgment against a party against whom default has been

entered. The decision to grant or deny a default judgment

under Rule 55(b) is within the discretion of the court. Eitel

v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Although a

formal hearing is not required for a court to render a default

judgment, Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981), the

plaintiff has the burden of proving damages through testimony

or written affidavit. If damages are ascertainable, however,

there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Sanchez, 

2007 WL 485955, at *2; Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *4 (citing

Ortiz-Gonzalez v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d 59, 63-64 (1st Cir.

2002)). 

In their motion, plaintiffs seek statutory damages

totaling $4,500.00, costs of litigation totaling $420.00, and

an injunction prohibiting present and future infringement. 

See id.; Mot. for Def. J., at 2. Section 504(a) of the

Copyright Act provides that a copyright infringer may be

liable for statutory damages under section 504(c) for each

violation “in a sum of not less than $750 or no more than

Case 4:07-cv-01023-PJH Document 22 Filed 07/11/07 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

$30,000 as the court considers just.” By virtue of his

default, defendant has admitted to six violations of the

Copyright Act. The minimum statutory damages are

ascertainable and reasonable. See Sanchez, 2007 WL 485955, at

*2; Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *4. I recommend that the court

award plaintiffs $750.00 for each of the six violations,

totaling $4,500.00.

In addition, section 505 of the Copyright Act allows the

court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel has declared under penalty of

perjury that, in pursuing this claim, plaintiffs incurred a

$350.00 filing fee and a $70.00 service of process fee, for a

total of $420.00. See Kerr Decl. ¶ 17. The request,

supported by counsel’s declaration, is reasonable. See

Sanchez, 2007 WL 485955, at *2; Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *5

(citing Discovery Comm., Inc. v. Animal Plant, Inc., 172 F.

Supp. 2d 1282, 1292 (C.D. Cal. 2001)). I recommend the court

award plaintiffs $420 in litigation costs.

Finally, section 502 of the Copyright Act allows

injunctive relief to “prevent or restrain infringement of a

copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). “‘Generally, a showing of

copyright infringement liability and the threat of future

violations is sufficient to warrant a permanent injunction.’” 

Jackson v. Sturkie, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal.

2003) (quoting Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp.

923, 940 (N.D. Cal. 1996)). As explained, defendant has

admitted six separate violations of the Copyright Act and

there is no assurance that he will not continue to infringe

Case 4:07-cv-01023-PJH Document 22 Filed 07/11/07 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

plaintiffs’ copyrights. See Elias, 2004 WL 141959, at *4-*5

(granting injunctive relief with respect to plaintiffs’

existing materials and those created in the future). I

therefore recommend that the court grant plaintiffs’ request

for injunctive relief.

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that judgment be

entered in plaintiffs’ favor against defendant for a total

award of $4,920.00. This amount includes $4,500.00 in

statutory damages and $420.00 in litigation costs. In

addition, I recommend that the court grant plaintiffs the

injunctive relief sought in their complaint. 

Dated: July 11, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\Priority Records\DEF.JUDG.REPORT AND REC.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-01023-PJH Document 22 Filed 07/11/07 Page 5 of 5