Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00975/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00975-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Atlantic Recording Corporation
Plaintiff
Fonovisa, Inc.
Plaintiff
Interscope Records
Plaintiff
Arturo Navarrete
Defendant
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

ARTURO NAVARRETE, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:06cv0975 OWW DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Document 25)

Plaintiffs Atlantic Recording Corporation, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Interscope

Records and Fonovisa, Inc., (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion for default judgment on

January 17, 2007. The motion was heard on April 13, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Attorney Thomas Kerr appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

Defendant Arturo Navarrete (“Defendant”) did not file a response to the motion, did not appear

at the hearing, and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the instant copyright infringement action on July 26, 2006. Plaintiffs

allege that Defendant, without permission or consent, used and continues to use an online media

distribution system to download Plaintiffs’ copyrighted materials and distribute them to the

public. Plaintiffs specify nine songs for which they claim infringement, but indicate that his total

Case 1:06-cv-00975-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 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

collection is much larger. Plaintiffs allege copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et

seq. and seek statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Defendant was served on August 31, 2006, by substitute service on his wife at their

address. Defendant was also served by mail. 

On November 28, 2006, the Clerk entered default against Defendant based on his failure

to answer the complaint or otherwise appear. Defendant was served with the default on

November 30, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for default judgment on February 1, 2007, and seek

judgment as follows: (1) minimum statutory damages ($750.00) for each of the nine

infringements alleged in the complaint, in the amount of $6,750; (2) a permanent injunction; and

(3) costs in the amount of $420.00. Plaintiffs do not seek to recover attorneys’ fees.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(b)(2), which provides that judgment may be entered:

By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default

shall apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered

against an infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a

general guardian, committee, conservator, or other such representative who has

appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has

appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by representative, the party's

representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment

at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the

court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account

or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment

by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may

conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper

and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any

statute of the United States.

“Upon default, the well pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability are taken

as true.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe and Concrete Products, 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th

Cir. 1983); Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, “[a]t

the time of entry of default, the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint are deemed

admitted.” 10 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §55.11 (3d ed. 2000). 

Case 1:06-cv-00975-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 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

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a

default judgment include: (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 v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th

Cir. 1986).

To prevail on a claim for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs must

prove that Defendant violated their exclusive rights as provided by Section 106 of the Copyright

Act, which provides, in pertinent part:

[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize

any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords ...

(3) to distribute copies of phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or

other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.

Section 501 of the Copyright Act provides that “anyone who violates any of the exclusive

rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 118 [of the Copyright Act] ...

is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be,” and that the “legal or

beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled ... to institute an action for any

infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it.” 17 U.S.C. §

501(a)-(b). 

Plaintiffs allege that they are the copyright owners or licensees of exclusive rights under

United States copyright with respect to certain copyrighted sound recordings (“Copyrighted

Recordings”). Among the exclusive rights granted to each Plaintiff under the Copyright Act are

the exclusive rights to reproduce the Copyrighted Recordings and to distribute the Copyrighted

Recordings to the public. Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used,

and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted

Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the

Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. These acts violate Plaintiffs’

exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution and his acts constitute infringement of

Case 1:06-cv-00975-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 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

Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Plaintiffs further allege that these acts of infringement have been willful

and intentional, in disregard of, and with indifference to, the rights of Plaintiffs.

With the entry of default, this Court may accept the factual allegations of Plaintiffs’

complaint as true. Based on Plaintiffs’ uncontested allegations, they are entitled to relief as

requested pursuant to Sections 502, 504 and 505 of the Copyright Act.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendant Arturo Navarrete be GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs be AWARDED statutory damages in the amount of $6,750.00, which

represents the statutory minimum of $750.00 for each of the nine alleged

infringements. 17 U.S.C. § 504(a);

3. Plaintiffs be GRANTED the following permanent injunction pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 502:

Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing

Plaintiffs’ rights under federal or state law in the Copyrighted Recordings and any

sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or

controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of

Plaintiffs) (“Plaintiffs’ Recordings”), including without limitation by using the

Internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any

of Plaintiffs’ Recordings, to distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings,

or to make any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings available for distribution to the public,

except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs. 

Defendant shall also destroy all copies of Plaintiffs’ Recordings that Defendant

has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs’

authorization and shall destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings

transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant’s possession,

custody or control. 

4. Plaintiffs be AWARDED costs in the amount of $420.00 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

505.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B)

and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file

Case 1:06-cv-00975-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 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

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 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 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00975-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 Page 5 of 5