Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.155.196.145

Filing 25

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hegartys Recommendation ECF No. 23 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Christopher Ling ECF No. 21 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiffs favor against Defendant Ling for direct copyright infringement of Plaintiffs copyrighted works, as set forth in Count I of the Amended Complaint, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 2/11/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01215-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LING,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
against Defendant Christopher Ling (ECF No. 21), filed November 25, 2014. This
motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Hegarty, who issued a Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23), filed December 31, 2014, and is
incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1.
Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended therein that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 23 at 1, 15.) He
notes that Ling did not answer or respond to the Amended Complaint before the deadline,
and that an entry of Default was issued on September 25, 2014. (Id. at 7.) He further
notes that Ling did not respond to the motion for default judgment. (Id.)
It is then recommended that default judgment be entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Ling pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). (Id. at 8-9.) In support of this, Magistrate

Judge Hegarty finds that the Court has jurisdiction and that “taking its allegations as true,
the Plaintiff has established violations of its copyrights by Defendant Christopher Ling, in
that a computer at Christopher Ling’s residence participated in an illegal download of
twelve (12) of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works.” (ECF No. 23 at 9.) Thus, he “finds that
Plaintiff has established Defendant Christopher Ling copied Plaintiff’s copyright protected
works” and “recommends that the District Court find Christopher Ling has committed
twelve (12) direct infringements of the Copyright Act against Plaintiff.” (Id. at 12-13.) As
to damages, it is recommended that Ling be ordered to pay Plaintiff $2,250.00 per
infringement ($27,000 in total for the 12 infringements) in statutory damages as
authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $1,627.00 for attorney’s fees and costs as
authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Id. at 13-14.)
Finally, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the Court grant in part and
deny in part Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (Id. at 15.) Thus, it is recommended
that Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Ling to “destroy all copies of Plaintiff’s works
that Defendant has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiff’s
authorization, and [ ] destroy all copies of the Works transferred onto any physical
medium or device in Defendant’s possession, custody or control” be granted. (Id. at
14-15.) On the other hand, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s request for an order, if sought, enjoining Ling from “continuing” to infringe on
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. (Id. at 16.)
Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this
advisement, no objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. No
-2-

objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation
"under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to
those findings"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the
Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the
record."2 See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation (ECF No. 23), I am satisfied that there is no
clear error on the face of the record. The Recommendation is well reasoned and
persuasive. I agree that Plaintiff should be granted default judgment against Defendant
Ling for direct infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. I further agree with the
Recommendation on damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Finally, I agree that
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be granted in part and denied in part as set
forth in the Recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant
Christopher Ling (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; namely, it

2

Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or
contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de
novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
-3-

is granted as to the request for a default judgment and for damages, and granted in part
and denied in part as to the request for injunctive relief. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendant Ling for direct copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, as set
forth in Count I of the Amended Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ling shall to pay to Plaintiff the sum of
$27,000.00 in statutory damages, as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $1,627.00
for attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 505. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ling shall permanently destroy all of the
digital media files relating to, and copies of, Plaintiff’s copyrighted works made or used by
him in violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, as well as all masters in his possession,
custody or control from which such copies may be reproduced. Finally, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request, if sought, to permanently enjoin Defendant and
all other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant from continuing
to infringe Plaintiff’s copyrighted works is DENIED.
Dated: February 11, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-