Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe 1-9

Filing 52

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty ECF No. 50 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Lisa Hudson ECF No. 41 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/26/2016.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00598-WYD-MEH
DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA HUDSON,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment against Defendant Lisa Hudson (ECF No. 41). In his Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the pending motion be granted in part and
denied in part. (Recommendation at 1, 13-14). The Recommendation is incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation.
(Recommendation at 1). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review
the Recommendation Aunder 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."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on
the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation is
thorough, well-reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that a
default should enter in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Lisa Hudson for the
reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty
(ECF No. 50) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against
Defendant Lisa Hudson (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
follows:
1. Judgment shall enter in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Hudson for direct
copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted Motion Picture, as set forth in Count I
of the Amended Complaint; and
2. Defendant Hudson is ordered to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $2,250.00 in statutory
damages, as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), and $2,885.98 for attorney’s fees and
costs as authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 505.

1

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).

-2-

Dated: January 26, 2016
BY THE COURT:

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

-3-