UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CV-334 JD 

) 

JOHNATHAN WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

This case arises out of allegations of copyright infringement. Now before the Court is the 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Jonathan Williams. [DE 

13.] The Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $67,500, a permanent injunction 

against Mr. Williams, and attorneys’ fees and costs. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

GRANTS the motion for default judgment. The Court will enter a permanent injunction against 

Mr. Williams’ infringing activities and award attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, the Court 

will award statutory damages, but in an amount lower than that requested by Malibu Media. 

I. Background

On April 19, 2013, Malibu Media filed a complaint in this Court alleging copyright 

infringement. [DE 1.] The initial complaint named a Doe defendant, who at that time was 

known only through association with an identified IP address. In response to a third party 

subpoena, Comcast identified Mr. Williams as the owner of that IP address. Malibu Media then 

filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that Mr. Williams willfully infringed its copyrights by 

disseminating, without authorization, all or portions of thirty copyrighted movies. [DE 8.] 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 1 of 8
2 

On July 26, 2013, Mr. Williams was personally served notice of these proceedings. [DE 

10.] After service, Mr. Williams has failed to plead, otherwise appear in this action, or respond 

to Plaintiff=s complaint as required by Rule 12(a). On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a). [DE 11.] The Clerk entered default on September 

25, 2013. [DE 12.] Plaintiff later filed this pending motion for default judgment and mailed 

notice of the motion to Defendant. [DE 13.] Despite having been allowed ample time to do so, 

Defendant has still failed to file an answer or any other responsive pleading, has not sought to set 

aside the entry of default, and has not filed any response to this pending motion. 

II. Jurisdiction 

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Venue and 

personal jurisdiction are appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(a), since Mr. 

Williams resides in Indiana. 

III. Discussion 

The entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b) lies within the sound discretion of the 

Court. Duling v. Markun, 231 F.2d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 1956). “In determining whether to enter a 

default judgment, the Court may consider a number of factors including whether there is a 

material issue of fact, whether the default is largely technical, whether the plaintiffs were 

substantially prejudiced, and how harsh an effect a default judgment might have.” Wolf Lake 

Terminals, Inc. v. Mut. Marine Ins. Co., 433 F. Supp. 2d 933, 941 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (quoting 

Wright & Miller, 10A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2685 (3d ed. 1998)). Default judgment, 

however, is not automatic. Plaintiffs seeking default judgment must demonstrate that they are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cass Cnty. Music Co. v. Muedini, 55 F.3d 263, 265 (7th 

Cir. 1995). “In making this inquiry, the court must assume that the factual allegations are, by 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 2 of 8
3 

reason of the default, true.” Id. at 265–66; see also Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & 

Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983) (“Upon default, the well-pleaded 

allegations of a complaint relating to liability are taken as true.”). 

Here, despite proper notice that an action is pending, Mr. Williams has not answered the 

complaint, sought to remove the entry of default, or otherwise appeared. Under these 

circumstances, the Court must conclude that Mr. Williams does not intend to defend himself. 

Default judgment is therefore appropriate if warranted by Plaintiff’s uncontested factual 

allegations. 

Here, the uncontested factual allegations establish as a matter of law that Mr. Williams is 

liable to Malibu Media for copyright infringement. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive 

right to, among other things, “reproduce the copyrighted work in copies” and “distribute copies 

. . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U.S.C. 

§ 106(1), (3). Assuming that the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint are true, the Court 

finds that Mr. Williams used the peer-to-peer file sharing network BitTorrent to distribute thirty 

of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works without authorization. These facts establish that Mr. 

Williams engaged in direct copyright infringement. 

An infringer of copyright is liable for monetary relief “for either (1) the copyright 

owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); 

or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).” 17 U.S.C. § 504(a). Here, Malibu 

Media is pursuing statutory, rather than actual, damages. Such statutory damages include: 

statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with 

respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable 

individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable 

jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 3 of 8
4 

$30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this 

subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work 

constitute one work. 

17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Also relevant here, “[i]n a case where the copyright owner sustains the 

burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its 

discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.” 17 

U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). 

 The Copyright Act additionally authorizes the Court to “grant temporary and final 

injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a 

copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502. Finally, the Court has discretion to award costs and fees to the 

prevailing party. 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

 Each type of damages is discussed below. 

A. Statutory Damages under § 504

A district court “has wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages to 

be awarded, constrained only by the specified maxima and minima.” Int’l Korwin Corp. v. 

Kowalczyk, 855 F.2d 375, 383 (7th Cir. 1988) (quoting Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 

1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984)). In determining the amount of statutory fees to award, the Court 

may consider factors such as “the difficulty or impossibility of proving actual damages, the 

circumstances of the infringement, and the efficacy of the damages as a deterrent to future 

copyright infringement.” Chi-Boy Music v. Charlie Club, Inc., 930 F.2d 1224, 1229 (7th Cir. 

1991) (quoting F.E.L. Publ’ns v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 754 F.2d 216, 219 (7th Cir. 1985)). 

Here, the statutory minimum is $750 per act of infringement. The statutory maximum is 

$30,000 per act of infringement, unless the Defendant acted willfully, in which case the statutory 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 4 of 8
5 

maximum increases to $150,000 per act of infringement. Here, Malibu Media seeks statutory 

damages of $67,500, which amounts to $2,250 per act of infringement. This is far below the 

threshold of $30,000 per infringement, so the Court need not make any formal finding as to 

willfulness. 

Regarding the amount of statutory fees to award, the Court finds the amount requested by 

Malibu Media to be excessive. Based on the circumstances of this case, the need to discourage 

infringement in other cases, and the need to compensate Malibu Media for the loss of its 

copyright, the Court determines that statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 per copyrighted 

work (for a total of $45,000) is appropriate. The Court notes that this conclusion is consistent 

with several recent cases from this district and the Northern District of Illinois, where other 

judges have considered statutory fees in the context of a default judgment and determined 

statutory damages of $1,500 per act of infringement to be sufficient. See Malibu Media, LLC v. 

Cowham, No. 3:13-cv-162, 2014 WL 2453027, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June 2, 2014) (granting default 

judgment and awarding plaintiff statutory damages of $1,500 per copyrighted work); PHE, Inc. 

v. Does 1–122, No. 13-cv-786, 2014 WL 1856755, at *2–3 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2014) (granting 

default judgment and awarding plaintiff statutory damages of $1,500 per copyrighted work, 

instead of the $7,500 requested by plaintiff; the court noted that “some commentators have urged 

courts to not find defendant’s infringing conduct to be ‘willful’ and eligible for enhanced 

statutory damages based solely on a default judgment, without additional, independent evidence 

of egregious conduct”); Malibu Media, LLC v. Brenneman, No. 3:13-cv-332, 2013 WL 6560387, 

at *2–3 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2013) (granting default judgment and awarding plaintiff statutory 

damages of $1,500 per copyrighted work, instead of the $2,250 requested by plaintiff; the court 

stated “the deterrent aspect of statutory damages should not be turned into a windfall where, as 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 5 of 8
6 

here, the Plaintiff has suffered only minimal damages” as the defendant “was merely one 

participant in a group of users sharing bits and pieces of Malibu’s works”). 

B. Injunctive relief under § 502

 Malibu Media also requests that the Court issue a permanent injunction as follows: 

(a) Permanently enjoining Defendant and all other persons who are 

in active concert or participation with Defendant from continuing 

to infringe Plaintiff's copyrighted Works; 

(b) Ordering that Defendant delete and permanently remove the 

digital media files relating to Plaintiff’s Works from each of the 

computers under such Defendant’s possession, custody or control; 

and 

(c) Ordering that Defendant delete and permanently remove the 

infringing copies of the Works Defendant has on the computers 

under Defendant’s possession, custody or control. 

[DE 13-1 at 10 (alterations removed).] 

 “Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may . . . grant 

temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain 

infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502. Such relief is not automatic. e360 Insight v. 

Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). However, in cases involving online 

infringement, such injunctions may be “appropriate to ensure that the misconduct does not recur 

as soon as the case ends.” BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 893 (7th Cir.2005) (citing 

United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953)). 

 Given Mr. Williams’s failure to respond to this case, there is a real possibility that he has 

continued to infringe on Malibu Media’s works during the course of these proceedings. 

Accordingly, the Court determines that the injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiff is 

reasonable and justified. 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 6 of 8
7 

C. Costs and Fees under § 505 

 Finally, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Such an award is 

authorized under § 505. Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees of $1,182 and costs of 

$425, together totaling $1,607. Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an affidavit stating the costs 

incurred and itemizing the time he and a paralegal have spent on this case. [DE 13-7.] Here, the 

Court finds that both the hourly rate ($300 per hour for attorney time and $85 per hour for 

administrative work) and the total billable hours (9.2 hours) are reasonable given the work 

needed to identify Mr. Williams and Plaintiff’s ultimate success in proving Mr. Williams liable 

by way of default. Additionally, the Court finds that the $425 in costs is reasonable. 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against 

Defendant Jonathan Williams [DE 13] is GRANTED, except that the award of statutory 

damages is in an amount less than that requested by the Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant Johnathan Williams is liable for the 

following payments to Plaintiff: 

 (1) $45,000.00 in statutory damages, for the thirty infringements alleged in the 

Amended Complaint ($1,500 for each infringement); 

 (2) statutory post-judgment interest at a rate of .11% on all monies owed under (1) 

above; and 

 (3) $1,607.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 The Court further ORDERS the following injunctive relief: 

(1) Defendant Jonathan Williams and all other persons who are in active concert or 

participation with the Defendant are permanently enjoined from continuing to 

infringe on the copyrighted works of Malibu Media. 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 7 of 8
8 

(2) Defendant Jonathan Williams is ordered to delete and permanently remove the 

digital media files relating to the copyrighted works of Malibu Media from each 

computer under his possession, custody, or control; and 

(3) Defendant Jonathan Williams is ordered to delete and permanently remove the 

infringing copies of the copyrighted works of Malibu Media from each computer 

under his possession, custody, or control. 

The clerk is directed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT by default in favor of Plaintiff 

against Defendant Johnathan Williams. 

SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED: July 31, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge 

United States District Court 

case 3:13-cv-00334-JD-CAN document 14 filed 07/31/14 page 8 of 8