Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. March et al

Filing 60

ORDER: The Application for Limited Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios of Defendants in Default, Ryoichi Watanabe, Jason Phillips, David Smith, and Adrush Media submitted by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC is DENIED. The Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File submitted by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Application for Limited Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios and the Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/3/2012. (mdc)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a
California Corporation,

CASE NO. 10cv1809 WQH (BLM)
ORDER

13

Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18

vs.
RYOICHI WATANABE, an individual;
JASON PHILLIPS, an individual;
DAVID SMITH, an individual; ADRUSH
MEDIA, a foreign corporation; and DOES
1-500,
Defendants.
HAYES, Judge:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The matters before the Court are the Application for a Limited Temporary Restraining
Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios and the Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing
Portions of the File submitted by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC.
I.

Background
On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, filed the Complaint (ECF

No. 1) and on October 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6)
alleging claims of cyberpiracy, cybersquatting, and trademark infringement against Defendants
Watanabe, Phillips, Smith, and Adrush Media for their use of website domain names which
target Plaintiff’s trademark CORBIN FISHER. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Watanabe
is “believed to be” a resident of Tokyo who registered an infringing domain name through
-1-

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

Godaddy.com; Defendant Phillips is “believed to be” a resident of the UK who registered an

2

infringing domain name through Publicdomainregistry.com; Defendant Smith is a foreign

3

individual who registered infringing domain names through Above.com; and Defendant

4

Adrush Media is a name holder for an infringing domain name registered through Directnic,

5

Ltd. Id. at 4-8.

6

On January 20, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff permission to serve Defendants

7

Watanabe, Phillips, Smith, and Adrush Media via their last known email addresses. (ECF No.

8

22). On January 26, 2011, Plaintiff returned executed summons of service for Defendants

9

Watanabe, Phillips, Smith, and Adrush Media. (ECF Nos. 25-28).

10

On March 28, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants

11

Watanabe, Phillips, Smith, and Adrush Media. (ECF No. 41). On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff

12

filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendants Watanabe, Phillips, Smith,

13

and Adrush Media. (ECF No. 45).

14

On November 18, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default

15

Judgment finding that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of: (1) $100,000 against Defendant

16

Watanabe for the domain name www.corbin-fisher.info; (2) $100,000 against Defendant

17

Phillips for the domain name www.ilovecorbinfisher.com; (3) $400,000 against Defendant

18

Smith

19

www.corbinfisheer.com; and www.corbinfissher.com; and (4) $100,000 against Defendant

20

Adrush Media for domain name www.corbin-fisher.com. In the Motion for Entry of Default

21

Judgment, Plaintiff also sought an injunction which included a request for an order: “Directing

22

Verisign, and all other domain name registrars to additionally freeze the entire domain name

23

portfolio held by the Defendants, as such portfolios likely are the only recoverable asset that

24

Defendants have.” (ECF No. 45 at 12). The Court did not grant the injunction freezing the

25

entire domain name portfolio held by the Defendants on the grounds that Plaintiff sought relief

26

in excess of the injunctive relief requested in the Complaint. The Court stated: “Plaintiff may

27

file a supplemental motion for injunctive relief no later than fourteen days from the date of this

28

order. (ECF No. 53 at 8). Plaintiff failed to file a supplemental motion for injunctive relief.

for

the

domain

names

www.cornbinfisher.com;

-2-

www.corbimfisher.com;

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

The Court concluded: “The Court finds that entry of a default judgment is not appropriate at

2

this stage of the proceedings on the grounds that there are claims proceeding against Defendant

3

James March.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).

4

On March 22, 2012, Defendant March was dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 59).

5

Plaintiff has not moved for entry of default judgment against Defendants Watanabe, Phillips,

6

Smith, and Adrush Media.

7

On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff submitted an Application for a Limited Temporary

8

Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios and a Motion for Order Temporarily

9

Sealing Portions of the File. Plaintiff seeks an Order as follows: “any domain name registrars

10

or registries (including Verisign, Inc.) utilized by the Defendants [Watanabe, Phillips, Smith,

11

and Adrush Media] shall immediately freeze any and all domain names held by or registered

12

by the Defendants so that they may not be transferred to any other parties.” (Proposed Order

13

at 1).

14

II.

Application for Limited Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name

15

Portfolios

16

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a order without notice restraining Ryoichi

17

Watanabe, registrant of corbin-fisher.info at [e-mail]; Jason Phillips,

18

registrant of ilovecorbinfisher.com at [e-mail]; David Smith, registrant of

19

cornbinfisher.com,

20

[e-mail];

21

[e-mail] and any domain name registrars utilized by the Defendants from

22

transferring any and all domain names held by or registered by Defendants until Defendants

23

satisfy any judgment entered in this case or until Defendants appear and show cause as to why

24

the order should be lifted.

corbimfisher.com,
and

Adrush

corbinfisheer.com,

and

Media,

of

registrant

corbinfissher.com at
corbin-fisher.com

at

25

Plaintiff asserts that it has information regarding the Defendants in the form of WHOIS

26

reports which include Defendants’ names and email addresses. Plaintiff contends that the

27

WHOIS information can be used to “freeze” Defendants’ domain name portfolios. In other

28

words, the WHOIS information can be used to identify Defendants Ryoichi Watanabe, Jason
-3-

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

Phillips, David Smith, and Adrush Media to domain name registrars and the domain name

2

registrars can prevent Defendants from transferring any domain name registered to them.

3

Plaintiff contends that it is likely to succeed on the merits because Defendants have

4

defaulted in this case. Plaintiff contends that it will suffer irreparable injury without the

5

requested injunction on the grounds that there is a “strong possibility that the Defendant[s] will

6

take actions to frustrate judgment in this case.” (App. for TRO at 6). Plaintiff asserts that

7

“none of the remaining Defendants have communicated with the Plaintiff not made any attempt

8

to resolve the judgments against them.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff contends that Defendants will able

9

to continue to use all of their domain names and will only be prohibited from disposing of the

10

domain names; therefore, Defendants will not suffer prejudice and the balance of hardship tips

11

in Plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff contends that the injunction serves the public interest of

12

upholding intellectual property protections.

13

The underlying purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

14

and prevent irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held. Granny

15

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974); see

16

also Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2006). The standard

17

for issuing a temporary restraining order is similar to the standard for issuing a preliminary

18

injunction, and requires that the party seeking relief show either “(1) a combination of

19

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

20

questions going to the merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of

21

the moving party.” Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County of Fed’n of Labor v. INS,

22

306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]hese two formulations represent two points on a sliding

23

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success

24

decreases.” Dep’t Parks & Rec. of Calif. v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th

25

Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that the court may issue a temporary

27

restraining order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney “only if: (a) specific facts

28

in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,
-4-

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

2

(b) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons

3

why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B). Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 65(b) also provides:

5
6
7
8

Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the
date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is
irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be
promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order
expires at the time after entry--not to exceed 14 days--that the court
sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a
like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The
reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
10

The court may grant an injunction to provide “intermediate relief of the same character
11

as that which may be granted finally,” but the court may not grant an injunction that “deal[s]
12

with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A.
13

v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 326 (1999) (quotations and citation omitted). An
14

equitable freeze of a defendant’s assets is only permissible when the assets are related to the
15

claims raised by the lawsuit and the seizure is ancillary to the final relief which the district
16

court is authorized to grant. See Reebok Intern., Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d
17

552, 561 (9th Cir. 1992).
18

“A party seeking an asset freeze must show a likelihood of dissipation of the claimed
19

assets, or other inability to recover monetary damages, if relief is not granted.” Johnson v.
20

Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that irreparable injury may be found
21

justifying asset freeze where the defendant had diverted $35 million from an employee stock
22

ownership plan to his personal account).
23

Plaintiff previously sought default judgment against Defendants including an injunction:
24

“[d]irecting Verisign, and all other domain name registrars to additionally freeze the entire
25

domain name portfolio held by the Defendants, as such portfolios likely are the only
26

recoverable asset that Defendants have.” (ECF No. 45 at 12). However, in the Complaint
27

Plaintiff sought an injunction transferring only the “Infringing Domain Names and/or any other
28

URLs that incorporate the Plaintiff’s trademarks to the Plaintiff ...directing each Defendant to
-5-

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

relinquish all rights in the Infringing Domain Names and to transfer the Infringing Domain

2

Names to the Plaintiff ... [and] directing the relevant registrar of each of the Infringing Domain

3

Names to transfer the Infringing Domain Names to the Plaintiff without delay ....” (ECF No.

4

6 at 14). The Court declined to grant the request for injunction stating: “Plaintiff seeks an

5

injunction in the Motion for Default Judgment which exceeds the injunctive relief requested

6

in the Complaint.” (ECF No. 53 at 8).

7

In the current Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff again seeks an

8

injunction freezing the entire domain portfolio of Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to show that

9

the assets it seeks to enjoin are related to the claims raised by the lawsuit and the seizure is

10

ancillary to the final relief which the district court is authorized to grant. See Reebok Intern.,

11

Ltd., 970 F.2d at 561. Plaintiff has also failed to specifically identify the assets which would

12

be the subject of the restraining order or show that the individuals and entities that would be

13

restrained by the TRO are properly subject to injunction.

14

Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence in support of its Application for Temporary

15

Restraining Order. Plaintiff has failed to show that there is a likelihood the claimed assets will

16

be dissipated or that Plaintiff will be unable to recover monetary damages. See Johnson, 572

17

F.3d at 1085. Although Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to communicate with

18

Plaintiff, the same could be said of many defaulting defendants. Failure to communicate is not

19

adequate to justify freezing Defendants’ assets. The Court concludes that the record does not

20

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant.

21

In addition, Plaintiffs’ proposed temporary restraining order contains no time limitation,

22

as required by Rule 65(b). See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002)

23

(holding that a “temporary restraining order” with a 30-day duration and which was entered

24

after an adversary hearing is “appropriately characterize[d]” as a preliminary injunction) (citing

25

Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 87-88 (1974) (“where an adversary hearing has been held,

26

and the court’s basis for issuing the order strongly challenged, classification of [a] potentially

27

unlimited order as a temporary restraining order seems particularly unjustified”). Plaintiff’s

28

Application for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
-6-

10cv1809 WQH BLM

1

III.

Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File

2

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting Plaintiff’s Application for Limited Temporary

3

Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios of Defendants and the Motion for Order

4

Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File to be filed under seal “until [Plaintiff’s] application

5

for [temporary restraining order] can be ruled upon.” (Mot. to Seal at 2).

6

The Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s Application for Limited Temporary Restraining Order

7

Freezing Domain Name Portfolios of Defendants. Accordingly, the Motion for Order

8

Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File is DENIED as moot.

9

IV.

Conclusion

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Limited Temporary Restraining

11

Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios of Defendants in Default, Ryoichi Watanabe, Jason

12

Phillips, David Smith, and Adrush Media submitted by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC

13

is DENIED. The Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File submitted by

14

Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall file

15

the Application for Limited Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Domain Name Portfolios

16

and the Motion for Order Temporarily Sealing Portions of the File.

17

DATED: May 3, 2012

18
19

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-

10cv1809 WQH BLM