Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited et al

Filing 102

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 90 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. Until PayPal, Inc. pays Plaintiff the sum of $550,000.00, as previously ordered, a total amount of $749,821.50 must remain frozen in Defendants PayPal account. Any sum exceeding that amount must be unfrozen. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 90 Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment is DENIED, as moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/27/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, a California
Corporation,

5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7
8

FF Magnat Limited, d/b/a Oron.com; Maxim
Bochenko, a/k/a Roman Romanov; and John
Does 1-500,

9

Defendants.
10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-01057-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

Pending before the Court is FF Magnat Limited, d/b/a Oron.com’s (“Defendant”) Motion

11
12

for Disbursement of Additional Funds and to Stay Execution of Judgment [ECF No. 90].

13

I.

14

BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC’s Motion

15

for a Temporary Restraining Order that froze Defendant’s accounts for fourteen (14) days,

16

including its account with PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”). (ECF No. 11.) Pursuant to the parties’ joint

17

stipulation, the Court ordered that these accounts remain frozen until August 9, 2012. (ECF No.

18

29.) Thereafter, the parties entered into settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 85.) Although the

19

parties previously disputed the existence of a settlement agreement, on August 7, 2012, the

20

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement that the parties agreed to

21

on July 5, 2012. (ECF No. 85.) Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff was

22

entitled to $550,000.00. (ECF No. 85.) In that Order, the Court further ordered that “FF

23

Magnat’s account shall remain frozen, in order to satisfy any fee award, which may be sought

24

by Plaintiff, but which must be brought within thirty (30) days of this Order.” (ECF No. 85,

25

8:3-5.) In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on August 10, 2012, seeking

Page 1 of 3

1

$199,821.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 89.) In total, given the Settlement

2

Agreement and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, the maximum amount due from

3

Defendant to Plaintiff was $749,821.50. (ECF No. 90.) However, on August 21, 2012, the

4

Court ordered PayPal to satisfy the judgment against Defendant and pay $550,000.00 to

5

Plaintiff from Defendant’s frozen PayPal account. (ECF No. 97.) Thus, the current maximum

6

amount that Defendant could possibly be ordered to pay to Plaintiff is the sum of $199,821.50

7

that Plaintiff seeks in its pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (ECF No. 89, 100.)

8
9

Defendant is now seeking disbursement of its funds that remain frozen in the PayPal
account above the amount it could possibly be ordered to pay to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 90.) This

10

is not Defendant’s first attempt to obtain relief from the Order that froze its accounts. (See ECF

11

Nos. 15, 20, 24.) In fact, the Court has entertained such a motion on at least two previous

12

occasions. (See ECF Nos. 19, 27.) On June 26, 2012, in response to the first such motion, the

13

Court specifically stated that “the Court will only consider [a motion for disbursement of funds]

14

if it is accompanied by an itemization specifying which funds are requested and for what

15

purpose. This request should be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the amounts requested,

16

their current location and their intended use.” (ECF No. 19, 1:22-25.) Subsequently, on June

17

29, 2012, the Court addressed an additional request for the release of funds and explicitly

18

advised that “any future requests must be accompanied by a full accounting of Defendant’s

19

accounts and presented with appropriate documentation . . . .” (ECF No. 27, 2:13-16).

20

However, these denials and Orders were entered prior to the settlement agreement when

21

Plaintiff was still pursuing its copyright infringement claims.

22

II.

23

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant were dismissed with prejudice as a result of the

24

Order Enforcing the Settlement. The maximum amount to which Plaintiff could possibly be

25

entitled to is the sum awarded in the Settlement Agreement, plus the amount that Plaintiff

Page 2 of 3

1

subsequently requested in attorneys’ fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiff is entitled to

2

$550,000.00 under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and is currently seeking

3

$199,821.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs, the sum total of which is $749,821.50. This amount

4

must remain frozen in Defendant’s PayPal account.

5

However, the Court previously ordered PayPal to satisfy the judgment that Plaintiff

6

received against the Defendant in the Court’s Order enforcing the settlement agreement.

7

Therefore, once PayPal has paid the ordered $550,000.00 to Plaintiff, PayPal must keep only

8

the remaining $199,821.50 frozen until Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is resolved. To

9

that end, the Court grants, in part, Defendant’s Motion for Disbursement of Funds. Until

10

PayPal, Inc. pays Plaintiff the sum of $550,000.00, as previously ordered, a total amount of

11

$749,821.50 must remain frozen in Defendant’s PayPal account. Any sum exceeding that

12

amount must be unfrozen.
Because the Court previously ordered PayPal to satisfy Plaintiff’s judgment against

13
14

Defendant resulting from the Order enforcing the settlement agreement, Defendant’s Motion to

15

Stay Execution of the Judgment is denied as moot.

16

III.

17

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Disbursement of Funds (ECF No. 90)

18

is GRANTED, in part. Until PayPal, Inc. pays Plaintiff the sum of $550,000.00, as previously

19

ordered, a total amount of $749,821.50 must remain frozen in Defendant’s PayPal account.

20

Any sum exceeding that amount must be unfrozen.

21
22
23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment (ECF
No. 90) is DENIED, as moot.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2012.

24

_____________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

25

Page 3 of 3