Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited et al

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 2 Motion for TRO. Motion Hearing re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and 6 MOTION to Appoint Receiver is set for 7/3/2012 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Responses to 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction are due by 5:00pm on 6/27/2012. Replies to 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction are due by 12:00pm on 7/2/2012. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Corporation, 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. 7 8 9 10 11 12 FF MAGNAT LIMITED, d/b/a Oron.com; MAXIM BOCHENKO, a/k/a Roman Romanov; and John Does 1-500, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-01057-GMN-RJJ ORDER The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims 13 sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges 14 copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement 15 and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) To show a substantial 16 likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show 17 that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants 18 violated one of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural 19 Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 20 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 21 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 22 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff. 23 Plaintiff has established irreparable harm wherein there is a substantial chance that 24 upon final resolution, the movant cannot be made whole. Plaintiff has demonstrated that 25 Defendants are engaged in allegedly fraudulent transfers that may impinge on the Court’s Page 1 of 4 1 ability to issue effective equitable relief. See In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights 2 Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1994) (proper to issue an injunction to keep assets from 3 being dissipated overseas, especially where defendant had engaged in a pattern of such 4 activity). 5 The balance of equities favors the issuance of a temporary restraining order in that it is 6 limited in scope and it does nothing more than prohibit Defendants from fraudulent transfers 7 and compels that they unwind those in which they have already engaged. Freezing the domain 8 names and any U.S. funds protects Plaintiff’s ability to receive any possible relief. There is 9 also a genuine public interest in upholding copyright protections. See Erickson v. Trinity 10 Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1066 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin 11 Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1255 (3d Cir. 1983) (“It is virtually axiomatic that the public 12 interest can only be served by upholding copyright protections …”)). 13 Finding that the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the relief requested herein, 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Any bank or financial institution in the United States with an account belonging to 16 FF Magnat Limited, Oron.com; Maxim Bochenko, Roman Romanov, or 17 anyone acting demonstrably in concert with them, will immediately freeze those 18 funds from being withdrawn for a period of fourteen (14) days until a hearing 19 on the Preliminary Injunction can be held; 20 2. PayPal, Inc. will immediately freeze any and all funds in any FF Magnat 21 Limited or Oron.com accounts from being withdrawn for a period of fourteen 22 (14) days until a hearing on Preliminary Injunction can be held; 23 3. CCBill, LLC will immediately freeze any and all funds in any FF Magnat 24 Limited or Oron.com accounts from being withdrawn for a period of fourteen 25 (14) days until a hearing on Preliminary Injunction can be held; Page 2 of 4 1 4. AlertPay will immediately freeze any and all funds in any FF Magnat Limited 2 or Oron.com accounts from being withdrawn for a period of fourteen (14) 3 days until a hearing on Preliminary Injunction can be held; 4 5. transfers; 5 6 6. 9 10 11 All Defendants are hereby enjoined from disgorging or dissipating any funds, property, domain names, or other assets until further notice. 7 8 VeriSign will freeze the www.oron.com domain name from any further IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that security pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 shall be posted immediately after entry of this Order in the amount of ONE HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS AND NO CENTS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff immediately serve the Complaint, Motion 12 For Temporary Restraining Order, Motion For Preliminary Injunction, and copy of this Order 13 on Defendants. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 3, 2012 15 at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge, in 16 Courtroom 7D of the Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Boulevard, 17 South, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendants to show cause why an Order pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 65 should not be entered granting to Plaintiff a preliminary injunction 19 extending the relief granted by this Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff’s request to have a 20 receiver appointed to take possession of the Defendant’s assets will also be addressed at that 21 hearing. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ answering papers shall be filed with 23 the Clerk of this Court and served on Plaintiff’s attorneys, with a courtesy copy being 24 delivered to Judge Gloria M. Navarro’s chambers, on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 June 27, 2012. Reply papers shall be likewise filed with the Clerk of this Court and served on Page 3 of 4 1 Defendants’ attorneys, with a courtesy copy being delivered to Judge Gloria M. Navarro’s 2 chambers, on or before 12:00 noon on Monday, July 2, 2012. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery is 4 DENIED without prejudice, as Plaintiff gives no proposed timeline or justification for 5 expedited discovery in its motion. 6 DATED this 21st day of June, 2012. 7 8 9 10 ________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 of 4