Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Murray
Filing
17
ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. 16 . Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction, statutory damages, and attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/23/2013. (KNC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BAIT PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:13-cv-0169-T-33AEP
ANGELICA MURRAY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court in consideration of
Plaintiff Bait Productions Pty Ltd.’s Motion for Default
Judgment
reasons
(Doc.
that
#
16),
follow,
filed
the
on
Court
July
grants
25,
2013.
Bait
For
the
Productions’
Motion requesting permanent injunction, statutory damages,
and attorney’s fees and costs.
I.
Factual History
Bait Productions holds the copyright registration on
the motion picture “Bait a/k/a Bait 3D,” which includes
copyright registration number PAu 3-553-375.1 (Doc. # 1 at ¶
18; Ex. A). “Under the [United States] Copyright Act, Bait
Productions owns all right, title, and interests in the
1
For uniformity, the Court will refer to the motion
picture in question – “Bait a/k/a Bait 3D” – as “the motion
picture” for the remainder of this Order.
[PAu 3-553-375] copyright, including the right to sue for
past infringement.” (Id. at ¶ 19).
In
its
Complaint,
Bait
Productions
alleges
that
on
September 23, 2012, Defendant Angelica Murray unlawfully
reproduced and distributed the motion picture by means of
an interactive “peer to peer” file transfer protocol called
BitTorrent. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8). Bait Productions recorded
Murray publishing the motion picture via BitTorrent when
Bait
Productions’
investigator
downloaded
the
motion
picture from Murray. (Id. at ¶ 22).
According
to
Bait
Productions,
Murray
obtained
a
torrent file for the motion picture and loaded the file
into BitTorrent. (Id. at ¶ 8). Once loaded, “[Murray’s]
BitTorrent program used the BitTorrent protocol to initiate
simultaneous
connections
with
hundreds
of
other
users
possessing and ‘sharing’ copies of digital media,” which
included the motion picture. (Id. at ¶ 9).
Bait
Productions
contends
that
each
time
Murray
distributed a copy of the motion picture to others over the
internet, particularly through BitTorrent, each recipient
was
able
to
distribute
that
copy
to
others
without
“degradation in sound or picture quality.” (Id. at ¶ 15).
Thus, Murray’s distribution of even one copy of the motion
2
picture
could
result
in
“nearly
instantaneous
worldwide
distribution to a limitless number of people.” (Id.).
It
is
republished
effort
to
Bait
and
Productions’
duplicated
deprive
[Bait
position
[the
motion
Productions]
that
“Murray
picture]
of
its
in
an
exclusive
rights in the motion picture.” (Id. at ¶ 26). Furthermore,
Murray’s acts of infringement were “willful, intentional,
and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of
Bait Productions.” (Id. at ¶¶ 32, 38).
II.
Procedural History
On
Complaint
January
16,
against
2013,
Murray
Bait
for
Productions
copyright
filed
infringement
a
and
contributory copyright infringement under the United States
Copyright
Act.
(Id.
at
¶
3).
Murray
failed
to
timely
respond, and on June 6, 2013, the Clerk of the Court filed
an
Entry
of
Default.
(Doc.
#
13).
Bait
Productions
subsequently filed the present Motion for Default Judgment
on July 25, 2013. (Doc. # 16).
Bait
Productions
requests
a
permanent
injunction
against Murray enjoining her from directly or indirectly
infringing Bait Productions’ rights in the motion picture.
(Doc. # 16 at 2-3). Bait Productions requests that this
injunction include use of the internet to reproduce or copy
3
the motion picture, to distribute the motion picture, or to
make the motion picture available for distribution to the
public,
unless
Bait
Productions
provides
Murray
with
a
license or express authority. (Id.). Bait Productions also
requests the Court require Murray to destroy all illegally
downloaded copies of the motion picture on any computer
hard drive or server and any copy of the motion picture
transferred onto any physical medium or device in Murray’s
possession, custody, or control. (Id.). Additionally, Bait
Productions seeks an award of statutory damages pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 504 and an award of attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Id.).
III. Legal Standard
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
55(a)
provides:
“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative
relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend,
and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the
clerk must enter the party’s default.” A district court may
enter
a
default
judgment
against
a
properly
served
defendant who fails to defend or otherwise appear pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). DirecTV, Inc.
v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
4
The mere entry of a default by the Clerk does not, in
itself, warrant the Court entering a default judgment.
See
Tyco Fire & Sec. LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863
(11th
Cir.
2007)(citing
Nishimatsu
Constr.
Co.
v.
Hous.
Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Rather, a
defaulted defendant is only deemed to admit the plaintiff’s
well-pled allegations of fact. Id. Furthermore, a default
judgment bars the defendant from contesting those facts on
appeal. Id. Therefore, before entering a default judgment
for
damages,
a
court
must
ensure
that
the
well-pled
allegations in the complaint, which are taken as true due
to
the
default,
actually
state
a
substantive
cause
of
action and that there is a substantive, sufficient basis in
the pleadings for the particular relief sought. Id.
“Once liability is established, the court turns to the
issue of relief.”
Enpat, Inc. v. Budnic, 773 F. Supp. 2d
1311, 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2011). “Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(c),‘[a] default judgment must not differ
in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the
pleadings,’ and a court may conduct hearings when it needs
to determine the amount of damages, establish the truth of
any
allegation
by
evidence,
5
or
investigate
any
other
matter.” Enpat, 773 F. Supp. 2d at 1313 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55(b)(2)).
IV.
Liability
A.
Copyright Infringement
To
establish
a
prima
facie
case
of
copyright
infringement, two elements must be proven: “(1) ownership
of
a
valid
copyright,
and
(2)
copying
of
constituent
elements of the work that are original.” Feist Publ’ns,
Inc.
v.
Rural
Tel.
Serv.
Co.,
Inc.,
499
U.S.
340,
361
(1991).
To satisfy the first element, “a plaintiff must prove
that the work . . . is original and that the plaintiff
complied with applicable statutory formalities.” Bateman v.
Mnemonics,
Inc.,
79
F.3d
1532,
1541
(11th
Cir.
1996)
(quoting Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d
807, 813 (1st Cir. 1995)). In a judicial proceeding, “a
certificate of a registration made before or within five
years after first publication of the work shall constitute
prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and
of
the
410(c).
facts
stated
Once
the
registration,
“the
in
the
plaintiff
burden
produces
shifts
6
certificate.”
to
a
the
17
U.S.C.
§
certificate
of
defendant
to
demonstrate
why
the
claim
of
copyright
is
invalid.”
Bateman, 79 F.3d at 1541.
To
satisfy
establish
second
the
that
the
element,
“alleged
the
infringer
plaintiff
actually
must
copied
plaintiff’s copyrighted material.” Latimer v. Roaring Toyz,
Inc.,
601
F.3d
1224,
1233
(11th
Cir.
2010).
However,
factual proof of copying is only part of satisfying the
second element; “the plaintiff must also respond to any
proof
advanced
by
the
defendant
[signifying]
that
the
portion of the work actually taken does not satisfy the
constitutional
plaintiff
requirement
survives
requirement,
they
a
must
of
originality.”
challenge
also
to
prove
that
Id.
“If
a
the
originality
‘the
copying
of
copyrighted material was so extensive that it rendered the
offending
and
copyrighted
works
substantially
similar.’”
Id. (quoting Lotus, 49 F.3d at 813).
Because the Clerk has entered default against Murray
(Doc. # 13), this Court deems Murray to have admitted to
Bait Productions’ well-pled allegations of fact.
Regarding
the
copyright
first
element,
Bait
Productions
holds
the
registration on the motion picture. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 18; Ex.
A). Bait Productions has provided the Court with a copy of
the
certificate
of
registration,
7
which
has
an
effective
date of April 19, 2011. (Id. at Ex. A). The effective date
is “before or within five years after the first publication
of
the
work,”2
and
therefore,
can
act
as
“prima
facie
evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts
stated
in
the
certificate.”
17
U.S.C.
§
410(c).
As
a
result, the Court finds that Bait Productions has satisfied
the
first
element
necessary
to
prove
copyright
infringement.
Concerning the second element, Bait Productions has
provided the Court with factual proof that Murray copied
the motion picture: Bait Productions recorded Murray using
an IP address on or about September 23, 2012, to download a
torrent file for the motion picture. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 8,
22). Because Murray has not responded in this action, Bait
Productions need not respond to any proof contradicting its
claim
of
originality
concerning
the
motion
picture.
Finally, the Court must accept Bait Productions’ contention
that each time Murray distributed a copy of the motion
picture
to
others
over
the
internet,
particularly
via
BitTorrent, each recipient was able to distribute that copy
to
others
without
“degradation
in
sound
or
picture
2
The certificate of registration provided by Bait
Productions
indicates
the
motion
picture
had
a
completion/publication date of 2010. (Doc. # 1 at Ex. A).
8
quality.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 15). Accordingly, Bait Productions
has satisfied the requirement of proving the “copying of
copyrighted material was so extensive that it rendered the
offending
and
copyrighted
works
substantially
similar.”
Latimer, 601 F.3d at 1233 (quoting Lotus, 49 F.3d at 813).
Therefore,
this
successfully
Court
satisfied
finds
the
that
Bait
second
Productions
element
has
necessary
to
infringement
by
prove copyright infringement.
B.
Contributory Copyright Infringement
One
commits
contributory
copyright
intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Studios
Inc.
v.
Grokster,
Ltd.,
545
U.S. 913, 930 (2005); see Casella v. Morris, 820 F.2d 362,
365
(11th
Cir.
infringement
1987)(stating
has
been
“the
test
for
as
‘one
formulated
contributory
who,
with
knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or
materially
contributes
another.’”)(quoting
to
the
Gershwin
infringing
Publ’g
Corp.
conduct
v.
of
Columbia
Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)).
Because Murray has not responded in this action, the
Court
accepts
true.
On
torrent
or
file
Bait
about
for
Productions’
September
the
motion
9
23,
factual
2012,
picture
allegations
Murray
onto
her
loaded
as
a
computer.
(Doc.
#
1
at
¶
8).
Because
of
Murray’s
involvement
in
BitTorrent, Murray could “initiate simultaneous connections
with
hundreds
copies
of
of
other
digital
users
media,”
possessing
which
and
included
‘sharing’
the
motion
picture. (Id. at ¶ 9). Bait Productions recorded Murray
publishing
the
motion
picture
via
BitTorrent
when
Bait
Productions’ investigator downloaded a copy of the motion
picture from Murray. (Id. at ¶ 22).
investigator
was
then
“able
to
As a recipient, the
distribute
that
copy
to
others without “degradation in sound or picture quality,”
potentially
causing
“nearly
instantaneous
worldwide
distribution [of the motion picture] to a limitless number
of
people.”
(Id.
at
¶
15).
Based
on
the
well-pled
allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Court finds
that Murray had sufficient knowledge of her own infringing
activity as well as the infringing conduct of others to be
held liable for contributory copyright infringement.
In view of the Court finding the factual allegations
in Bait Productions’ Complaint, taken as true, sufficient
to
establish
that
Murray
is
liable
for
copyright
infringement and contributory copyright infringement of the
motion picture, this Court will proceed to the issue of
relief.
10
V.
Relief Requested
A.
Injunction
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 (a), this court may “grant
temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may
deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a
copyright.” A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must
satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such
relief:
A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has
suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
available at law, such as monetary damages, are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3)
that,
considering
the
balance
of
hardships
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in
equity is warranted; and (4) that the public
interest would not be disserved by a permanent
injunction.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
“The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief
is an act of equitable discretion by the district court,
reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion.” Id.
In its Complaint, Bait Productions did not provide the
Court with any evidence of actual damage suffered as a
result
of
Murray’s
infringement
of
the
motion
picture,
specifically the amount of revenue lost, if any. However,
Bait Productions has sufficiently established that Murray’s
conduct “is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by
11
this Court, will continue to cause Bait Productions great
and
irreparable
injury.”
(Doc.
#
1
at
¶¶
34,
40).
Additionally, the Court finds that due to the possibility
of future infringement of the motion picture by Murray and
others, monetary damages alone are inadequate to compensate
Bait Productions for any injury it has sustained or will
potentially sustain in the future. Furthermore, Murray has
not provided the Court with any evidence purporting to show
her claim to the motion picture; therefore, Murray would
suffer
minimal,
injunction
if
being
any,
hardship
issued.
On
the
as
a
result
other
of
hand,
the
Bait
Productions, as the holder of the copyright of the motion
picture (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 18; Ex. A), could sustain hardship,
specifically lost revenue, if Murray is not enjoined from
engaging in the infringing activity. Finally, there is no
indication that the public interest would be disserved by
the issuance of a permanent injunction against Murray.
Therefore, upon review of the well-pled allegations,
taken as true, the Court finds that granting a permanent
injunction against Murray is proper. Accordingly, Murray is
enjoined
from
directly
or
indirectly
infringing
Bait
Productions’ rights in the motion picture. This includes
use
of
the
internet
to
reproduce
12
or
copy
the
motion
picture, to distribute the motion picture, or to make the
motion picture available for distribution to the public,
unless Murray receives a license or express authority from
Bait
Productions.
destroy
all
Furthermore,
illegally
Murray
downloaded
is
copies
required
of
the
to
motion
picture on any computer hard drive or server and any copy
of the motion picture transferred onto any physical medium
or device in Murray’s possession, custody, or control.
B.
Statutory Damages
The
United
States
Copyright
Act
allows
a
copyright
owner to recover statutory damages for an infringement. In
awarding
statutory
damages
under
the
Copyright
Act,
for
each work infringed by any one infringer that is liable
individually, or for which any two or more infringers are
liable jointly and severally, the Court generally may award
not less than $750 or more than $30,000, “as the Court
considers
just.”
17
U.S.C.
§
504(c)(1).
However,
the
statutory damages to be awarded under the Copyright Act may
be
reduced
defendant
to
as
where
low
the
as
$200
infringer
per
work
sustains
infringed
the
burden
per
of
proving that he was not aware and had no reason to believe
that his acts constituted copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C.
§
504(c)(2).
Additionally,
the
13
Court
may
increase
the
statutory damages to as much as $150,000 per work infringed
where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving
that the infringement was committed willfully. Id.
“The Court has wide discretion to set an amount of
statutory damages.” Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. Dongping, No. 1061214-civ,
2010
WL
4450451,
at
*6
(S.D.
Fla.
Oct.
29,
2010); see Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prod. Inc.,
902 F. 2d 829, 852 (11th Cir. 1990)(quoting Harris v. Emus
Records Corp., 734 F. 2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984) when it
stated “the court has wide discretion in determining the
amount of statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only
by the specified maxima and minima.”). In determining a
statutory
damages
award
under
the
Copyright
Act,
courts
consider factors such as:
(1) the expenses saved and the profits reaped;
(2) the revenues lost by the plaintiff; (3) the
value of the copyright; (4) the deterrent effect
on others besides the defendant; (5) whether the
defendant’s conduct was innocent or willful; (6)
whether a defendant has cooperated in providing
particular records from which to assess the value
of the infringing material produced; and (7) the
potential for discouraging the defendant.
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynch, No. 2:12-cv-542-FTM-38,
2013 WL 2897939, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2013).
Although
the
Court
believes
that
an
award
at
the
minimum level would be an insufficient deterrent for Murray
14
and others engaged in this infringing activity, the Court
finds
that
several
of
the
factors
to
be
considered,
specifically Bait Productions’ lack of evidence regarding
lost revenue, require a statutory damages award toward the
lower end of the spectrum.
i.
Expenses Saved and Profits Reaped
Neither party has provided the Court with information
regarding expenses saved or profits generated from Murray
unlawfully possessing or distributing the motion picture.
However, the Court can presume that if Murray reaped any
profits as a result of possession or distribution of the
motion picture, the profits resulted without incurring the
costs
and
expenses
associated
with
producing
the
motion
picture.
ii.
Revenues Lost by Bait Productions
“‘Statutory
damages
are
not
intended
to
provide
a
plaintiff with a windfall recovery;’ they should bear some
relationship
to
the
actual
damages
suffered.”
Clever
Covers, Inc. v. Sw. Fla. Storm Def., LLC, 554 F. Supp. 2d
1303, 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2008)(quoting Peer Int'l Corp. v.
Luna
Records,
Inc.,
887
F.
Supp.
560,
568-69
(S.D.N.Y.
1995)). While the Court is satisfied with Bait Productions’
evidence
of
Murray’s
infringement,
15
Bait
Productions
has
failed
to
provide
any
evidence
of
its
own
lost
sales,
profits, or licensing fees as a result of the infringement.
iii.
Value of the Copyright
Bait Productions has not provided the Court with any
information that would assist in evaluating the value of
copyright
registration
number
PAu
3-553-375.
Therefore,
this factor need not be further discussed.
iv.
Deterrent Effect on Others Besides Murray
The Court recognizes that with the popularity of the
internet,
the
potential
for
future
infringement
of
the
motion picture by others besides Murray is relatively high.
However, Bait Productions did not provide the Court with
any
evidence
illustrating
the
value
of
the
copyright,
revenues lost, nor profits gained by Murray. Absent such
proof
by
Bait
appropriate
to
Productions,
impose
a
the
Court
statutory
does
damages
not
find
it
award
at
the
maximum end of the spectrum in an effort to deter future
infringement.
v.
Bait
Whether Murray’s Conduct was Innocent or Willful
Productions
contends
that
Murray’s
acts
of
infringement were “willful, intentional, and in disregard
of
and
with
indifference
16
to
the
rights
of
Bait
Productions.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 32, 38). As a result of
Murray’s
default,
the
Court
may
infer
Murray
willfully
engaged in copyright infringement against Bait Productions.
See Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enters., Inc., 298 F.
Supp. 2d 1310, 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2003)(inferring that the
alleged
infringement
was
willful,
as
a
result
of
defendant’s default, based on allegations of willfulness in
plaintiff’s complaint). However, Bait Productions is not
automatically entitled to the maximum amount of statutory
damages
merely
because
it
has
shown
that
Murray
acted
willfully; the Court must still consider the other factors
in making its determination. See Clever Covers, Inc., 554
F. Supp. 2d
vi.
at 1313.
Whether
Murray
Has
Cooperated
in
Providing
Particular Records From Which to Assess the Value
of the Infringing Material Produced
Murray has not appeared or responded in this action
and has not provided the Court with any records to assess
the value of the motion picture.
vii.
Potential for Discouraging Murray
The Court recognizes that the imposition of statutory
damages serves to sanction or punish defendants in order to
deter wrongful conduct. See St. Luke's Cataract & Laser
17
Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186, 1205 (11th Cir.
2009). Murray engaged in willful infringement of the motion
picture,
damages
which
award.
warrants
See
17
an
increase
U.S.C.
§
in
the
504(c)(2).
statutory
However,
the
Court is mindful that Bait Productions has not provided the
Court with any evidence showing actual damages suffered as
a result of Murray’s actions.
Upon due consideration of the aforementioned facts,
the
Court
determines
an
award
of
$25,000
in
statutory
damages adequately compensates Bait Productions. See Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Delane, 446 F. Supp. 2d 402, 407 (D. Md.
2006)(concluding
because
$6,500
per
there
was
although
profited,
he
available
using
infringement
did
on
make
a
a
infringement
no
evidence
plaintiff’s
BitTorrent
wide
scale
warranted
that
defendant
copyrighted
tracker,
and
was
thus,
impacting
material
enabling
plaintiff’s
potential revenue); Clever Covers, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d at
1313(determining
$31,000
warranted
than
rather
per
statutory
infringed
maximum
copyright
of
$150,000
was
for
willful infringement when plaintiff failed to provide the
court
with
evidence
of
its
lost
sales,
profits,
or
licensing fees); see also Peer Int'l Corp., 887 F. Supp. at
568-69 (limiting its award of statutory damages to $10,000-
18
$25,000 when parties did not provide the court with an
estimation
of
the
fair
market
value
of
the
rights
infringed, revenues lost by the plaintiffs, nor the profits
gained by the defendant). Further, the Court is satisfied
that
the
statutory
damages,
coupled
with
the
injunctive
relief ordered herein, will serve as a sufficient deterrent
against any future wrongful conduct by Murray and others
engaging in such conduct.
C.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
In addressing attorney’s fees and costs, 17 U.S.C. §
505, states:
In any civil action under this title, the court
in its discretion may allow the recovery of full
costs by or against any party other than the
United States or an officer thereof. Except as
otherwise provided by this title, the court may
also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the
prevailing party as part of the costs.
Bait Productions has requested $1,275 in attorney’s
fees and $400 in costs. (Doc. # 16 at 3, 10-11).
to
Bait
Productions’
counsel,
he
spent
According
three
hours
performing legal services at a rate of $425 per hour. (Id.
at Ex. 2 ¶ 8).
in
costs
to
Furthermore, Bait Productions incurred $400
bring
this
action
against
Murray,
which
includes a $350 filing fee and $50 process server fee.
(Doc. # 16 at Ex. 2 ¶ 9). Upon review of Bait Productions’
19
Motion
and
accompanying
Fee
Declaration,
the
Court
determines that the attorney’s fees and costs requested are
reasonable under the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
Bait
Productions
Pty
Ltd.’s
Motion
for
Default
Judgment (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED.
(2)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd.’s request for a permanent
injunction
Angelica
against
Murray
indirectly
Angelica
is
infringing
enjoined
Bait
Murray
from
Productions
is
GRANTED.
directly
Pty
or
Ltd.’s
rights in the motion picture. This includes use of the
internet to reproduce or copy the motion picture, to
distribute the motion picture, or to make the motion
picture
available
for
distribution
to
the
public,
unless Angelica Murray receives a license or express
authority from Bait Productions Pty Ltd. Furthermore,
Angelica Murray is required to destroy all illegally
downloaded
copies
of
the
motion
picture
on
any
computer hard drive or server and any copy of the
motion picture transferred onto any physical medium or
device in Angelica Murray’s possession, custody, or
control.
20
(3)
Bait
Productions
damages
is
damages
in
Pty
Ltd.’s
GRANTED.
the
The
amount
of
request
Court
$25,000
for
statutory
imposes
statutory
against
Angelica
Murray.
(4)
Bait
Productions
Pty
Ltd.’s
request
for
attorney’s
fees and costs is GRANTED. Angelica Murray is ordered
to pay Bait Productions Pty Ltd. $1,275 in attorney’s
fees and $400 in costs.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
23rd day of August, 2013.
Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record
21
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?