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 getbigfast2010@gmail.com; Jason Phillips,
18
registrant of ilovecorbinfisher.com at info@jasonphillips.co.uk; David Smith, registrant of
19
cornbinfisher.com,
20
parkdns@gmail.com;
21
adrushmedia@gmail.com 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?