Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited et al

Filing 139

ORDER Denying 107 Motion to Stay or Reconsider 102 Order. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

FF MAGNAT LIMITED, et al., et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

9

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Stay or Reconsider the Court’s Order on

10
11

Disbursement of Funds (ECF No. 107) filed by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC

12

(“Plaintiff”). Defendant FF Magnat Limited, Oron.com, Maxim Bochenko, and Roman

13

Romanov (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Response. (ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff failed to file a

14

Reply.

15

I.

16

BACKGROUND
This suit originated when Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging copyright infringement on

17

June 20, 2012. (Compl. ECF No. 1.) Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement agreement,

18

which the Court enforced. (Order Grant’g Mot. to Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 85.) In that

19

agreement, Defendants agreed to, among other things, pay $550,000 to Plaintiff. (Mot. to

20

Enforce Settlement Ex. A, ECF No. 33-1.) In the Court’s order enforcing the terms of the

21

Settlement Agreement, the Court further ordered that “FF Magnat’s account shall remain frozen,

22

in order to satisfy any fee award, which may be sought by Plaintiff . . ..” (Order Grant’g Mot. to

23

Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 85, 8:3-5.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’

24

Fees, seeking $199,821.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Emergency Renewed Mot. for Att’y

25

Fees 5:1, ECF No. 89.)
Page 1 of 5

1

Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Disbursement of Funds and to Stay Execution

2

of Judgment. (ECF No. 90.) In that motion, Defendants requested that the Court unfreeze

3

Defendants’ assets beyond the amount under the Settlement Agreement and the amount

4

requested in Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Id.) Specifically, Defendants argued that,

5

including the amount owed under the settlement agreement and the amount requested in

6

attorneys’ fees, the maximum amount to which Plaintiff could possibly be entitled was

7

$749,821.50. (Mot. for Disbursement of Additional Funds 1:1-10, ECF No. 90.)

8

In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Directing PayPal, Inc. to Satisfy

9

Judgment. (ECF No. 96.) On August 21, 2012, the Court granted that motion and ordered

10

PayPal, Inc. to satisfy the $550,000.00 judgment entered against Defendants. (ECF No. 97.)
Subsequently, on August 27, 2012, the Court ordered that “[u]ntil PayPal, Inc. pays

11
12

Plaintiff the sum of $550,000.00, as previously ordered, a total amount of $749,821.50 must

13

remain frozen in Defendant’s PayPal account. Any sum exceeding that amount must be

14

unfrozen.” (Order Grant’g in part and Deny’g in part Mot. for Disbursement of Funds 3:17-20,

15

ECF No. 102.)

16

In response to the Court’s August 27, 2012 Order, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to

17

Stay or Reconsider the Order on Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (ECF No. 107.) For the

18

reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

19

II.

20
21

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff first requests that the Court reconsider its Order disbursing Defendants’ funds

above the amount owed Plaintiff under the settlement agreement and for attorneys’ fees.

22

A.

Legal Standard

23

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

24

circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

25

Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
Page 2 of 5

1

(2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

2

an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty v. ACandS, Inc.,

3

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

4

B.

5

Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of establishing that any of the three situations that

Discussion

6

warrant reconsideration has occurred in this case. Plaintiff’s motion lacks any reference to

7

newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the Court can

8

only assume that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is based on some clear error in the

9

Court’s August 27, 2012, Order or some type of manifest injustice resulting therefrom.

10

However, these arguments are simply repeated from Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’

11

original motion for disbursement of funds. As before, the Court finds these arguments

12

unpersuasive. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

13

III.

14

MOTION TO STAY
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay its August 27, 2012, Order, which

15

would result in Defendants’ assets remaining frozen. Plaintiff argues that a stay is appropriate

16

pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

A.

Legal Standard

18

Rule 62(c) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or

19

final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify,

20

restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s

21

rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). Furthermore, before a movant is entitled to a stay under Rule

22

62(c) it must establish that

23
24
25

(1) . . . the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
the merits; (2) . . . the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) . . .
issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Page 3 of 5

1

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

2

B.

3

The Court initially notes that it appears that Rule 62(c) does not authorize a stay of the

4

Court’s August 27, 2012 Order on disbursement funds, as Plaintiff argues. Rule 62(c) applies

5

when an appeal is pending from a judgment that “grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). Plaintiff’s motion lacks any reference to an appeal from a judgment in

7

which the Court granted, dissolved or denied an injunction.

8
9

Discussion

Even if Rule 62(c) could serve as the basis for the requested stay, Plaintiff has failed to
convince the Court that such a stay is appropriate here. First, Plaintiff’s motion lacks the

10

requisite “strong showing that [it] will likely succeed on the merits.” Rather, Plaintiff argues

11

only that it “has succeeded on the merits of the case already.” (Mot. to Stay 2:13-14, ECF No.

12

107.) In reality, the merits of the case were not resolved because the Court found that the parties

13

had reached an enforceable settlement agreement. (Order Grant’g Mot. to Enforce Settlement,

14

ECF No. 85.) Second, Plaintiff has not carried its burden of establishing that it will be

15

irreparably injured absent a stay. The Court’s August 27, 2012 Order expressly kept sufficient

16

funds frozen in Defendants’ account to satisfy the terms of the settlement agreement and to

17

satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees. (Order 3:1-4, ECF No. 102.) The remaining allegations of

18

“irreparable harm” in Plaintiff’s motion consist of mere hypotheticals that fail to convince the

19

Court that Plaintiff “will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” (See generally Mot. for Stay 2:24-

20

4:25, ECF No. 107 (arguing that the Court should consider the hypothetical litigation costs

21

incurred during any appeal that Plaintiff may be able to recover at some point in the future).)

22

Third, Plaintiff argues that the requested stay “should not cause any further undue hardship to

23

[Defendants].” (Mot. to Stay 2:15-20, ECF No. 107.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that “the public

24

interest clearly aligns with [Plaintiff].” (Id. at 2:20-23.)

25

Ultimately, Plaintiff’s arguments consist of conclusory statements and references to
Page 4 of 5

1

hypothetical events. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not carried its burden of establishing that

2

issuance of a stay is appropriate in this case.

3

IV.

4
5
6

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay or Reconsider Order ECF No. 102

filed by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC is DENIED.
DATED this 19th day of March, 2013.

7
8
9

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 5 of 5