Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. AVELA., Inc. et al

Filing 378

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt 344 is DENIED. Defendant AVELAs Countermotion for Attorneys Fees and Costs 355 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 5/18/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

6
7

FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD.,
et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
9
10
11

v.

A.V.E.L.A., INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-00105-PMP-GWF
ORDER

)
)
)
)

12
13

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Find Defendants

14

A.V.E.L.A., Inc. (“AVELA”), Leo Valencia, and Sci-Fi Productions, Inc., dba X

15

One X Movie Archive, Inc. (“X One X”) (collectively, “the AVELA Defendants”),

16

and certain of its licensees - namely, Pricepoint Accessories dba Section 8 (“Section

17

8"), Funko, LLC (“Funko”), JGR Copa, LLC (“JGR Copa”) and C&D Visionary,

18

Inc. (“C&D Visionary”) - In Contempt of Court (Doc. #344) for violating the

19

permanent injunction in this case on February 14, 2011 (Doc. #307). Having

20

considered Plaintiffs’ fully briefed Motion and the arguments of counsel presented

21

at the hearing conducted May 16, 2012, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion for

22

Contempt must be denied.

23

The Partial Monetary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. #307)

24

entered by the Court on February 14, 2011, is unambiguous with respect to the

25

obligations placed upon the AVELA Defendants and its licensees. To obtain an

26

Order of Contempt, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing

1

evidence that the allege contemnor violated the Injunction, that such violation was

2

beyond substantial compliance, and was not based on a good faith and reasonable

3

interpretation of the Injunction. Labor/Community Strategy CTR v. Los Angeles

4

Metro Transportation Authority, 564 F. 3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court

5

finds that the evidence and declarations offered by Plaintiffs fail to meet their

6

burden with regard to each of the alleged contemnors.

7
8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt
(Doc. #344) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant AVELA’s Countermotion

10

for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Doc. #355) is DENIED.

11

DATED: May 18, 2012.

12
13
14

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2