N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT FAC EB OOK, INC ., a

De la ware c orporation, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. POW ER VENTUR

ES, INC ., a

C aym an Isla nd c orporation; STEVEN SUR AJ VAC HANI, a

n individual, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-16161

D.C . No. 5:08-c v-05780-LHK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia L uc y H. Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 16, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , M . SM ITH, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nts Powe r Ve nture s, Inc
. , a nd Ste ve n Va c ha

ni c ha lle nge the distric t
c ourt’ s c o m

plia nc e with them andate tha

t we issue d

the first tim e this c a se c am e



# F IL ED
JAN 18 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).be fore us. Fa c e book, Inc . v. Powe r Ve n ture s, Inc ., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th C ir. 2016).

W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. De fe nda

nts c annot re l itiga

te the i r prior a

ppe a l , whe re we a ffirm e d tha t the y viola te d the C om

pute r Fraud a

nd Abuse Ac t of 1986 (" C FAA" ) an d C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 502. Fa c e book, 844 F.3d a t 1069–70. Under the la

w of the
c a se doc trine , we " will not re c o nside r m atte rs re solve d in a prior a ppe a l to a nothe r pa ne l in thesa

m e c a se " unle ss " the re ha s be e n a n inte rve ning c ha

n ge of c ontrolling
a uthority , ne we vide nc e ha s surfa c e d, or the pre vious disposition wa s c le arly
e rrone ous a

nd would work a

m anife st injustic e ." Le slie Sa lt C o. v. Unite d State s, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392–93 (9th C i r. 1995). B e c a use those fa c t ors a

re not pre s e nt he re ,

" we will not e nte rta in a

se c o n d atte m

pt to litiga

te " De fe nda

nts’ lia bility . Gospe l M issions of Am
. v. C ity

of Los Ange le s, 419 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th C ir. 2005). 2. R e vie wing de novo, Unite d State s v. Thra she r, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C ir. 2007), we hold tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

plie d with our m a

ndate . On re m and, the d istric t c o urt c orre c tly a ddre sse d only

" a ppropria te re m e die s unde r the C FAA
and se c tion 502 [for Pla i ntiff Fa c e book, Inc .] , inc luding a ny injunc tive re l ie f." Fa c e book, 844 F.3d a

t 1070. 3. W e re vie wfor c l e ar e rror the distric t c ourt’ s c om puta tion of da m a ge s, Ne wGe n, LLC v. Sa fe C ig, LLC , 840 F.3d 606, 617 (9th C ir. 2016), but we re vie w
2de novo whe the r the distric t c ourt a pplie d the c orre c t

le ga l sta nda rd for c o m

puting dam a ge s, Am

ba ssa d or Hote l C o. v. W e i-C hua n Inv., 189 F.3d 1017, 1024 (9th C ir. 1999). He re , the distric t c ourt a pplie d the c orre c t

le ga l sta nda rd: whe the r Pla intiff suffe re d a " loss" a s de fine d in the C FAA, 18 U.S.C . § 1030(e )(11). The n, using Pla i ntiff’ s undispute d e vide nc e , the distric t c o urt prope rly

c a lc ulate d

Pla intiff’ s dam a ge s sole ly

" for the pe riod a fte r Powe r re c e ive d the c e a s e and de sist le tte r, whe n Powe r c o n tinue d to a c c e s s da ta c o n ta ine d in Fa c e book’ s se rve rs a nd m e m ory ba nks." Fa c e book, 844 F.3d a t 1070. W e the re fore a ffirm the award of $79,640.50 in C FAA dam a ge s in fa

vor of Pla intiff. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by granting a pe rm ane nt injunc tion a ga inst De fe nda nts. Se e La

Quinta W orldwide LLC v. Q.R .T.M ., S.A. de C .V., 762 F.3d 867, 879 (9th C ir. 2014) (a rtic ulating thesta

nda rd of re vie w). The re c ord supports the

distric t c ourt’ s findings tha t: (1) Pla intiff suffe re d a

n irre pa ra ble injury ; (2) re m e die s a va ila ble at la w, inc luding m o ne ta

ry dam a g e s,
c annot c om

pe nsate a de quate ly for that injury ; (3) the ba la nc e of ha rdships be twe e n Pla i ntiff a nd De fe nda

nts we ighs in fa

vor of gra nting a pe rm ane nt injunc tion; a

nd (4) the public inte re st we ighs in fa vor of gra nting a pe rm a

ne nt injunc tion. Id. C onsiste nt with our prior holding tha t De fe nda nts did not viola

t e the C ontrolling the A ssa u lt of Non-Solic ite d

Pornogra phy an d M arke t ing (" C AN-SPAM " ) Ac t of
32003, Fa c e book, 844 F.3d a t 1065, thedistric t c ourt na rrowe d the sc ope of the injunc tion by

re m o ving provisions spe c ific to the C AN-SPAM Ac t. AFFIRM E D
.

4