Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01110/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01110-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0501 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUMINENCE, LLC

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1110-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

TOP LIGHTING CORPORATION;

JULIUS, INC.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Default Judgment filed by

Plaintiff Luminence, LLC and the Request for Court to Consider Additional Evidence

for Attorneys Fees and Costs After Default Judgment. (ECF Nos. 6, 9). 

On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against

Defendants Top Lighting Corporation and Julius, Inc. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brings a

cause of action for direct copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

against Defendants. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a limited liability company

that “creates and sells fun and unique fiber optic light-up accessories, including but not

limited to, its Glowbys® brand hair attachments.” Id. ¶ 2,7. The Complaint alleges,

“On February 26, 2013, Plaintiff obtained a registration with the United States

Copyright Office, Registration Number VA 1-897-465, for the photographic work

entitled Girl Wearing Glowbys 1 (the ‘Copyrighted Work’).” Id. ¶ 9. The Complaint

alleges that Defendants “create[] and sell[] novelty items . . . including fiber optic light-

- 1 - 17cv1110-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01110-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

up accessories” and “directly compete[] with Plaintiff with regard to the sale of fiber

optic light-up accessories.” Id. ¶ 12. The Complaint alleges that Defendants’

packaging for hair clip products available from online listings on Amazon and eBay

“display[s] an infringing copy of the Copyrighted Work.” Id. ¶¶ 13-17. The Complaint

alleges, “Plaintiff has never licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the

Defendant[s] to reproduce, distribute, display or otherwise use the Copyrighted Work”

and that “[d]espite multiple notices and demands, Defendant[s] willfully and

intentionally continued to infringe on Plaintiff’s exclusive copyright in the Copyrighted

Work.” Id. ¶¶ 11, 18. 

On June 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed Proof of Service with respect to both Defendants. 

(ECF No. 3). 

On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Clerk Default as to

both Defendants. (ECF No. 4). On August 22, 2017, the Clerk entered default as to

both Defendants. (ECF No. 5). 

On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No.

6). Defendants have not filed any response to the Motion for Default Judgment. In the

motion, Plaintiff requested $4,667.04 in attorney’s fees; however, Plaintiff provided

insufficient evidence to establish that the attorney’s fees were warranted. See TeleVideo

Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation

omitted) (quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)) (“The

general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except

those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”). 

On December 20, 2017, the Court issued an Order stating, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff is entitled to $4,500 in statutory damages and to a permanent injunction. Plaintiff may submit any evidence in support of the request for attorney’sfees on or before January 9, 2018. The Motion for Default Judgment shall remain pending in order

to allow Plaintiff time to submit any additional evidence related to attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 8). 

On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court to Consider Additional

- 2 - 17cv1110-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01110-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

Evidence For Attorneys Fees and Costs After Default Judgment. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff

requests “an award of $4,667.04 for attorney’s fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts

that it has incurred $4,200 in attorney’s fees and $467.04 in costs through January 3,

2018. Id. Plaintiff also states that it “reserves the right to submit a supplemental

motion for any later fees and costs.” Id. Plaintiff contends that attorney’s fees are

warranted because Defendants “continuously sold products utilizing the copyright

protected images of Plaintiff, even after receiving notice to cease and desist.” Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff filed a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, Matthew Capron, which includes

an itemized list of the fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff and states that the total costs

and attorney’s fees incurred in this case are $4,667.04. (ECF No. 9-1). 

The Copyright Act provides that the Court may award recovery of attorney’s fees

and costs to the prevailing party as a matter of the Court’s discretion. 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff is entitled to $4,667.04

in attorney’s fees and costs. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment and the

Request for Court to Consider Additional Evidence for Attorneys Fees and Costs After

Default Judgment are GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 6, 9). Plaintiff is entitled to $4,500 in

statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and $4,667.04 in attorney’s fees and costs.

The Court orders Plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment in accordance with this Order

within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 

DATED: January 9, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 17cv1110-WQH-BLM

Case 3:17-cv-01110-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-01110-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4