ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 through 20

Filing 44

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY ISSUE AND/OR CLAIM PRECLUSION. Show Cause Hearing set for 2/20/2018 10:30 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/18/2018. (afc)< FONT SIZE=1>CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.;
VENICE PI, LLC;
LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
vs.
)
)
TRAVIS PAGADUAN,
)
)
Defendant,
)
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 17-000130 SOM/KJM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LHF
PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S CLAIMS
ARE NOT BARRED BY ISSUE
AND/OR CLAIM PRECLUSION

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S CLAIMS
ARE NOT BARRED BY ISSUE AND/OR CLAIM PRECLUSION
I.

INTRODUCTION.
This is the second copyright infringement action that

one Plaintiff, LHF Productions, Inc., has filed against Defendant
Travis Pagaduan for what appears to be the same allegedly
infringing conduct with respect to “London Has Fallen.”

In the

earlier case, judgment was entered in LHF Productions’ favor.
LHF Productions is ordered to show cause why its claims against
Pagaduan in this action are not barred by issue and/or claim
preclusion.
II.

BACKGROUND.
LHF Productions appears to have filed two actions

against Pagaduan for alleged copyright violations involving the
same movie (“London Has Fallen”), the same time period, and the
same conduct.

A.

Pagaduan I.

On February 23, 2017, LHF Productions sued Pagaduan for
violation of its copyright in the movie “London Has Fallen.”

See

Second Amended Complaint ¶ 8, LHF Productions, Inc. v. Pagaduan,
Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No. 20, PageID # 105 (“Pagaduan
I”).
In Pagaduan I, LHF Productions asserted claims of
copyright infringement (First Claim for Relief) and contributory
copyright infringement (Second Claim for Relief) based on
Pagaduan’s alleged use of BitTorrent to offer “London Has Fallen”
online.

See id.

Pagaduan’s conduct allegedly occurred from June

9 to June 27, 2016.

See Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No. 20-1.

Pagaduan was served with a copy of the Second Amended
Complaint in Pagaduan I on April 15, 2017.
JMS/RLP, ECF No. 26.

See Civ. No. 16-00437

Default was entered on May 22, 2017.

See

Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No. 29.
On July 5, 2017, LHF Productions moved for default
judgment in Pagaduan I.
31.

See Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No.

On August 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi

issued his Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny
in Part Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment (“F&R”).
33.

See Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No.

The F&R recommended that default judgment be entered in LHF

2

Productions’ favor for $750 in statutory damages and that the
court deny LHF Productions’ request for injunctive relief.

Id.

On September 11, 2017, Chief District Judge J. Michael
Seabright adopted the F&R.
No. 34.

See Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF

Judgment was entered in favor of LHF Productions the

following day.

See Civ. No. 16-00437 JMS/RLP, ECF No. 35.

No

appeal was taken.
B.

Pagaduan II.

On September 1, 2017, LHF Productions, acting as one of
several Plaintiffs, again sued Pagaduan in the present case with
respect to alleged violations of its copyright rights in the
movie “London Has Fallen.”

See First Amended Complaint ¶ 16, LHF

Productions, Inc. v. Pagaduan, Civ. No. 17-00130 SOM/KJM, ECF No.
16, PageID #s 67-68 (“Pagaduan II”).

The First Amended Complaint

in Pagaduan II notes that Pagaduan was sued in Pagaduan I for
alleged copyright violations with respect to “London Has Fallen”
on June 11, 2016.

Id. ¶ 35, PageID #s 71-72.

The First Amended

Complaint then alleges that Pagaduan also infringed LHF
Productions’ copyright in “London Has Fallen” two days later, on
June 13, 2016, again through BitTorrent.

Id. ¶ 36, PageID # 72.

Notwithstanding Magistrate Judge Puglisi’s F&R of
August 21, 2017, recommending that the court enter default
judgment in Pagaduan I in favor of LHF Productions and against
Pagaduan in the amount of $750 in statutory damages covering
3

Pagaduan’s alleged violation of LHF Productions’ copyright rights
through his use of BitTorrent in June 2016 with respect to
“London Has Fallen,” LHF Productions asserted what appear to be
the same copyright claims against Pagaduan in Pagaduan II.

In

the First Amended Complaint in Pagaduan II (filed just days after
the F&R in Pagaduan I), LHF Productions again asserts that
Pagaduan used BitTorrent to infringe the copyright in “London Has
Fallen” (First Claim for Relief) and to contributorily infringe
(Second Claim for Relief).

See ECF No. 16.

Pagaduan was served with a copy of the First Amended
Complaint in Pagaduan II on September 7, 2017.
Default was entered on October 4, 2017.

See ECF No. 20.

See ECF No. 29.

On October 12, 2017, LHF Productions moved for default
judgment.

See ECF No. 33.

On December 29, 2017, Magistrate

Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield issued his Findings and Recommendation
to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment Against Defendant Travis Pagaduan (“F&R II”).
No. 42.

See ECF

The F&R II recommended that default judgment be entered

in LHF Productions’ favor for $750 in statutory damages, $875 in
attorney’s fees, and $270 in costs, and that part of the
requested injunctive relief be granted.
III.

Id.

ANALYSIS.
Although no party has filed objections with respect to

the F&R II, this court, in reviewing the record, has become
4

concerned that LHF Productions may be attempting to get a double
recovery or to get relief that was declined by the court in
Pagaduan I.

The court therefore issues the present order to show

cause, which the court will resolve before acting on the F&R II.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), the court may award
“statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action,
with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is
liable individually . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more
than $30,000 as the court considers just.”

District courts have

“wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages
to be awarded, constrained only by the specified maxima and
minima.”

Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1355 (9th

Cir. 1984).

In Pagaduan I, LHF Productions sought and was

awarded statutory damages of $750 against Pagaduan with respect
to his alleged June 2016 copyright violations concerning “London
Has Fallen.”

Judgment was entered in favor of LHF Productions

and against Pagaduan on September 12, 2017.
00437 JMS/RLP, ECF Nos. 33-35.

See Civ. No. 16-

No appeal was taken, and that

judgment is now a final judgment.
Days after Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued his
Pagaduan I F&R of August 21, 2017, recommending that default
judgment be entered in favor of LHF Productions and against
Pagaduan in the amount of $750, LHF Productions filed the First
Amended Complaint in this case, asserting that the same

5

Defendant, Pagaduan, had committed copyright violations with
respect to the same work, “London Has Fallen,” for the same time
period--June 2016.

In fact, the conduct Pagaduan was alleged to

have committed appears to be identical in both cases, which were
filed by different attorneys.

It therefore appears that either

LHF Productions mistakenly filed a second suit against Pagaduan
for the same conduct, or it was not satisfied with Magistrate
Judge Puglisi’s F&R and filed a second suit hoping to get a more
favorable result.

LHF Productions is now ordered to show cause

why its claims in this action are not barred by res judicata
and/or collateral estoppel, as a final judgment on the merits has
been entered in Pagaduan I.
Res judicata and collateral estoppel limit
relitigation.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim

preclusion, “a final judgment on the merits of an action
precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues
that were or could have been raised in that action.”

Allen v.

McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); see Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d
1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007).

“Claim preclusion requires three

things: (1) identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the
merits; and (3) the same parties, or privity between the
Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th

parties.”
Cir. 2012).

As the Ninth Circuit has said:

Res judicata bars relitigation of all grounds
of recovery that were asserted, or could have
6

been asserted, in a previous action between
the parties, where the previous action was
resolved on the merits. It is immaterial
whether the claims asserted subsequent to the
judgment were actually pursued in the action
that led to the judgment; rather, the
relevant inquiry is whether they could have
been brought.
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency,
322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation
omitted).

The res judicata effect of a federal court judgment is

a matter of federal law.

See Western Systems, Inc. v. Ulloa, 958

F.2d 864, 871 n.11 (9th Cir. 1992).
When a federal court has decided the earlier case,
federal law also controls the collateral estoppel, or issue
preclusion, analysis.

See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th. Cir. 2004).

To have issue preclusion

(1) the issue at stake must be identical to
the one alleged in the prior litigation;
(2) the issue must have been actually
litigated [by the party against whom
preclusion is asserted] in the prior
litigation; and (3) the determination of the
issue in the prior litigation must have been
a critical and necessary part of the judgment
in the earlier action.
Id.
No later than January 31, 2018, LHF Productions may
file a written response to this order to show cause that
demonstrates why its claims against Pagaduan are not precluded by
issue and/or claim preclusion.

Any such written filing must be

no more than 1000 words.
7

This court will hold a hearing on this order to show
cause on February 20, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.

Counsel for LHF

Productions, Kerry S. Culpepper, must appear at this hearing in
person, unless LHF Productions moots out this order to show cause
by dismissing all claims in this action against Pagaduan no later
than January 31, 2018.
V.

CONCLUSION.
As set forth above, LHF Productions is ordered to show

cause why its claims against Pagaduan are not precluded by issue
and/or claim preclusion.

A hearing on this order to show cause

is set for 10:30 a.m. on February 20, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 18, 2018.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

LHF Productions, Inc. v. Pagaduan, Civil No. 17-000130 SOM/KJM; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.’S CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY ISSUE AND/OR CLAIM PRECLUSION

8