Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00571/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00571-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia Limited
Plaintiff
Lisa Marks
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLUMBIA PICTURES FILM CASE NO. CV F 06-571 OWW LJO

PRODUCTION ASIA LIMITED,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

Plaintiff, ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

vs. JUDGMENT

LISA MARKS,

Defendant.

 /

On September 18, 2006, plaintiff Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia Limited applied for

entry of a default judgment by the Court in this copyright infringement case. Plaintiff seeks statutory

damages of $6,000, a permanent injunction enjoining defendant Lisa Marks from infringing plaintiff’s

copyrights, and attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,912.03 ($1,486.02 in fees and $426.01 in

costs). On September 19, 2006, District Judge Oliver Wanger referred this matter to the Magistrate

Judge forissuance of Findings and Recommendations. By order on September 19, 2006, any opposition

to plaintiff’s application for default judgment was due by October 2, 2006. No opposition has been filed.

Statutory damages are authorized under 17 U.S.C. section 504(c):

“The copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is

rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award

of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with

Case 1:06-cv-00571-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Respect to any one work,lllin a sum of not less than $750 or more

than $30,000 as the court considers just.”

In addition, for willful violations, the Court may award $150,000 per infringement.

The defendant distributed at least one motion picture that she knew or should have known was

a pirated copy. At the time of the distribution, the movie was still in the theaters.

Plaintiff provided evidence to the Court of how it tracked the copying and distributing of the

plaintiff’s motion picture by the defendant, including employing an anti-piracy consulting firm,

MediaSentry. Plaintiff has provided evidence to the Court that it expended between $3000 to $5000 to

develop the evidence and information necessary just to bring the instant action.

Based upon Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment by the Court, and good cause appearing

therefore, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court ORDER and ADJUDGE that:

/////

/////

1. Defendant Lisa Marks shall pay damages to Plaintiff for infringement of Plaintiff’s

copyrights in the motion picture listed on Exhibit A to the Complaint, in the total

principal sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00).

2. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein in the amount of

One Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Dollars and Three Cents ($1,912.03).

3. Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s

rights under federal or state law in the following copyrighted motion picture:

Kung Fu Hustle; and

any other motion picture, whether now or in existence or later created, that is owned or

controlled by Plaintiff (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Plaintiff) (“Plaintiff’s

Motion Pictures”), including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media

distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiff’s Motion Pictures, to

distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiff’s Motion Pictures, or to make any of Plaintiff’s

Motion Pictures available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful

license or with the express authority of Plaintiff. Defendant also shall destroy all copies

Case 1:06-cv-00571-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

of Plaintiff’s Motion Pictures that Defendant has downloaded onto any computer hard

drive or server without Plaintiff’s authorization and shall destroy all copies of those

downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant’s

possession, custody, or control.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. Within 10 court days after

service of these findings and recommendations on the parties, any party may file written objections to

these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties and the magistrate

judge in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Responses to objections shall be

filed and served within 10 court days after service of the objections in compliance with this Court’s

Local Rule 72-304(d). A copy of the responses shall be served on the magistrate judge. The district

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00571-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 3