Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia Limited
Plaintiff
Roeun Uth
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLUMBIA PICTURES FILM NO. CIV.S-06-1054 FCD DAD

PRODUCTION ASIA LIMITED,

a Hong Kong corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROEUN UTH,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

This matter came before the court on December 8, 2006, for

hearing on plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against

defendant Roeun Uth. Karen Thorland appeared on behalf of plaintiff. 

There was no appearance on behalf of defendant. Having considered

all written materials submitted with respect to the motion, and after

hearing oral argument, for the reasons set forth below the

undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be granted.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 8
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

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Film Production Asia Limited

initiated this action for damages and injunctive relief by filing its

complaint on May 12, 2006. The complaint alleges copyright

infringement in violation of the Copyright Act. Despite being served

with process, defendant Roeun Uth failed to appear. The Clerk of the

Court has entered default against defendant Uth pursuant to

plaintiff’s request. On October 25, 2006, plaintiff filed the

instant motion, noticing it to be heard before the undersigned, as

provided by Local Rule 72-302(c)(19). Despite being served with all

moving papers, defendant has not responded to the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs

applications to the court for entry of default judgment. Upon entry

of default, the complaint’s factual allegations regarding liability

are taken as true, while allegations regarding the amount of damages

must be proven. Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete

Products, 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983)(citing Geddes v. United

Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977)); see also TeleVideo Sys.,

Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). It is

improper for the court to consider liability issues without first

providing notice to plaintiff that the merits will be addressed. 

Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7th Cir. 1994). Where damages are

liquidated (i.e., capable of ascertainment from definite figures

contained in the documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits),

judgment by default may be entered without a damages hearing. See

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Dundee, 722 F.2d at 1323. Unliquidated and punitive damages,

however, require “proving up” at an evidentiary hearing or through

other means. Dundee, 722 F.2d at 1323-24; see also James v. Frame, 

6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).

Granting or denying default judgment is within the court’s

sound discretion, see Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th

Cir. 1986) (citations omitted), and the court is free to consider a

variety of factors in exercising that discretion, see Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The court may

consider such factors as:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the

plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s

substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the

complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the

action, (5) the possibility of a dispute

concerning material facts, (6) whether the

default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the

strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 55-

05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26). 

ANALYSIS

The complaint in this action alleges one count for the

infringement of copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act, 17

U.S.C. 101, et seq. In sum, the detailed allegations of the

complaint allege that defendant has copied and distributed to others

over the Internet unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s copyrighted

motion picture, Kung Fu Hustle. Plaintiff is a Hong Kong corporation

in the business of the production, acquisition and distribution of

motion pictures for theatrical exhibition, home entertainment and

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

other forms of distribution. Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright

and pertinent exclusive rights under copyright in the United States

for Kung Fu Hustle, which the complaint alleges was unlawfully and

willfully distributed over the Internet by defendant. As authorized

by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), plaintiff’s motion seeks an award of $6,000

against defendant. Plaintiff also seeks permanent injunctive relief

as well as recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Weighing the factors outlined in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

at 1471-72, the undersigned has determined that default judgment

against defendant is appropriate. Defendant has made no showing that

his failure to respond to the complaint was due to excusable neglect. 

The complaint is sufficient, and the amount of money at stake is

relatively small, particularly because plaintiff seeks only statutory

damages, not the recovery of lost profits or actual damages. There

is no reason to doubt the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim,

nor is there any apparent possibility of a dispute concerning the

material facts underlying the action. As these factors weigh in

plaintiff’s favor, the undersigned, while recognizing the public

policy favoring decisions on the merits, will recommend that default

judgment be granted.

After determining that entry of default judgment is

warranted, this court must next determine the terms of the judgment. 

As indicated above, plaintiff seeks an award of $6,000 against

defendant. Such an award is permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1),

which provides for the election of statutory damages in a copyright

infringement case “in a sum of not less than $750 or more than

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

$30,000 as the court considers just.” Thus, § 504(c)(1) affords

plaintiffs the right to pursue statutory damages without proving

actual damages. In determining an appropriate award under the

Copyright Act, courts consider factors such as:

(1) “the expenses saved and the profits reaped;”

(2) “the revenues lost by the plaintiff;” (3)

“the value of the copyright;” (4) “the deterrent

effect on others besides the defendant;” (5)

“whether the defendant's conduct was innocent or

willful;” (6) “whether a defendant has cooperated

in providing particular records from which to

assess the value of the infringing material

produced;” and (7) “the potential for

discouraging the defendant.”

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 125 (S.D. N.Y.

2003)(citing Fitzgerald Pub. Co., Inc. v. Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F. 2d

1110, 1117 (2d Cir. 1986)). See also Microsoft Corp. v. PC Exp., 183

F. Supp. 2d 448, 454 (D. P.R. 2001)(listing the same factors).

Looking to the relevant factors, no evidence submitted in

connection with the instant motion details the expenses saved and

profits reaped by defendant or the revenues lost by plaintiff as a

result of the infringement. However, evidence submitted by plaintiff

suggests that in general Internet piracy costs members of the Motion

Picture Association of America millions, and perhaps billions, of

dollars per year. Moreover, the undersigned recognizes that such

calculations would in any event be difficult due to the nature of the

Internet and the fact that defendant Uth offered the motion picture

in question for downloading to potentially thousands of others. With

respect to the other factors, the undersigned finds that an award of

$6,000 will likely serve to deter defendant as well as others. While

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 8
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

 An award of $6,000 is also reasonable in light of the amount 1

of damages awarded in other similar cases. (See Mem. of Law in Supp.

of App. for Entry of Default J. by the Court at 4 n.1 & Ex. 1.)

6

the court has discretion to award up to $30,000, the record suggests

that the defendant against whom default judgment is now sought is an

individual, not any type of business or corporation. An award of

$6,000 is at least commensurate with the value of plaintiff’s

copyright. As outlined in plaintiff’s motion, defendant Uth has

failed to cooperate with plaintiff in its efforts to litigate this

matter, including attempts at settlement. For these reasons, the

undersigned finds the requested award of $6,000 is just.1

Plaintiff also is entitled to the requested permanent

injunctive relief. Title 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides, in relevant

part, that a court may “grant temporary and final injunctions on such

terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement

of a copyright.” Injunctive relief is warranted in this case. As

demonstrated by plaintiff courts around the country have approved

similar requests. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that

defendant be 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 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

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Plaintiff's Motion Pictures available for

distribution to the public, except pursuant to a

lawful license or with the express authority of

plaintiff.

The undersigned also will recommend that defendant be directed to:

destroy all copies 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.

Plaintiff seeks to recover reasonable attorney fees and

costs incurred as a result of litigating this action against

defendant. See 17 U.S.C. § 505. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted

declarations detailing the $2,800.42 sought for attorney fees and

costs. The undersigned finds the rates customary and hours expended

reasonable for litigating an action of this nature.

Moreover, an award of attorney fees is warranted in this

case. The Copyright Act provides that “the court in its discretion

may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other

than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise

provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable

attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17

U.S.C. § 505. Courts regularly award attorney fees and costs in

copyright cases, especially where, as here, there is a willful

violation by a defendant who has ignored plaintiff’s attempts to

resolve this matter and failed to participate in proceedings. See

Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enterprises, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d

1310, 1315-16 (S.D. Fla. 2003). An award of fees and costs also will

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

serve to deter future infringements. Accordingly, the undersigned

will recommended that plaintiff be awarded the requested attorney

fees and costs of $2,800.42 as to defendant Uth.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment be

granted; and

2. The district judge assigned to this case sign the

[Proposed] Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed on October

30, 2006 (Doc. no. 22).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case 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 Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within five 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: December 8, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1/orders.civil/columbiapictures1054.default

Case 2:06-cv-01054-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 12/11/06 Page 8 of 8