Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited et al

Filing 97

ORDER Granting 96 Motion for Order Directing PayPal, Inc. to Satisfy Judgment by Plaintiff Liberty Holdings, LLC. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5

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

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, a California
6 Corporation
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

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

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

ORDER

14 TO PAY PAL, INC.:INC.
TO: PAY PAL,
15
On August 7, 2012, a Judgment was entered in the docket of the above-entitled Court and
16 action in favor of Liberty Media Holdings, LLC as Judgment Creditor, and against FF Magnat
17 Limited as Judgment Debtor, for $550,000.00 principal, making a total of $550,000.00 judgment as
18 entered. Said Order (ECF No. 85) and Clerk's Judgment (ECF No. 86) are attached hereto.
19
No payment nor partial satisfaction existing, the net balance of $550,000.00 is actually due
20 to Liberty Media Holdings, LLC.
21
YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED satisfy the said Judgment provided by law,
YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED to to satisfy said Judgment asas provided by law,
22 from the PayPal account belonging to Judgment Debtor FF Magnat Limited to the trust account of
23 counsel for the Judgment Creditor, Liberty Media Creditor, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC.
Randazza Legal Group, counsel for the Judgment Holdings, LLC.
24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. 21st day of August, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

25
26 Dated: August __, 2012
27
28

_________________________

________________________________
Hon. Gloria M. Navarro
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 8

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
FF MAGNAT LIMITED, d/b/a Oron.com;
)
MAXIM BOCHENKO, a/k/a Roman Romanov; )
and JOHN DOES 1-500,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

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

INTRODUCTION

11

Before the Court is Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

12
13

Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 33). Defendant FF Magnat Limited (hereinafter

14

“Defendant”) filed a Response (ECF No. 44), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 66).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Motions #33 and #34 (ECF No. 32).

15
16

Defendant filed an Opposition (ECF No. 39), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 41).
FACTS AND BACKGROUND

17
18

The instant case involves a dispute over Defendants’ alleged copyright infringement of

19

Plaintiff’s works. This Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

20

order against Defendant. (TRO Order, ECF No.11.)1 Thereafter, on July 1, 2012, attorneys for

21

Plaintiff and Defendant signed a letter memorializing settlement terms in regards to this case and

22

a similar case between these two parties in Hong Kong (hereinafter “Settlement Letter”).

23

(Settlement Letter, Ex. A attached to Mtn to Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 33-1.) The pertinent

24

parts of the settlement letter are as follows:

25
1

The TRO was later amended. (Amended TRO, ECF No. 13.)

Page 1 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 8

1.
Oron pays Liberty Media $550,000.
...
8.
Once payment is received by both parties, both proceedings in NV and HK will be
dismissed with prejudice, and in the event that Oron breaks any part of the deal, the
claims may be reinstated via arbitration after a 30 day “notice and cure” period.
...
12.
Liberty agree to announce publically that after a careful review of the facts they
believe Oron is protected by the DMCA safe harbor and that a review of the actual files
shows that there never was any child porn on Oron’s site.
...
14.
Liberty will immediately, once the terms of the agreement are agreed to issue a
letter asking that the HK bank accounts be unfrozen allowing the payment to the
Randazza Trust and then to Leaseweb as well as send a letter to Leaseweb asking them to
allow Oron ten (10) days to pay as the settlement of the matter is imminent.
15.
...
19.

All parties mutually release
If you agree to these terms for your client please sign on the line below and return.

(See id.)
On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Bob Rietjens, Senior Legal Counsel at

14

LeaseWeb, disclosing that the parties were near a settlement and requested that LeaseWeb not

15

terminate the account for www.oron.com due to nonpayment. (Letter to LeaseWeb, Ex. B

16

attached to Mtn to Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 33-2.) On July 3, 2012, the parties filed a Joint

17

Stipulation to Extend Hearing Date and Submission Deadlines so that the parties could

18

“facilitate attempts to narrow the issues in this matter or to come to a mutually beneficial

19

resolution to the dispute.” (Stipulation, ECF No. 28.) On July 3, 2012, S.T. Poon & Wong,

20

Defendant FF Magnat Limited’s counsel in the Hong Kong matter, delivered a letter to

21

Plaintiff’s Hong Kong counsel that states “[w]e are instructed that our client had reached an

22

amicable settlement.” (HK Letter, Ex. C attached to Mtn to Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 33-3.)

23

A dispute arose after the Settlement Letter was signed and after Plaintiff sent the letter to

24

LeaseWeb. E-mails sent between Stevan Lieberman, counsel for Defendant, and Marc

25

Randazza, counsel for Plaintiff, on July 3, 2012, indicate that the parties disputed who was/would

Page 2 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 3 of 8

1

be bound by the terms of the Settlement Letter. (See Lieberman Decl. ¶¶6-9, ECF No.44-1; E-

2

mails, Exs. B-E attached to Response, ECF Nos. 44-3-44-6.) Defendant believed that all

3

defendants, including Mr. Bochenko, would be included in the terms; Plaintiff apparently did not.

4

(See id.) On July 3, 2012, Marc Randazza sent an e-mail to his paralegal, on which Stevan

5

Lieberman was copied. In this e-mail Randazza instructs his paralegal that they “need to put the

6

brakes on this. While I am not certain, it appears that settlement is not going to happen…we may

7

get back on track, but it seems that right now, the settlement we brokered is going off the rails.”

8

(Email re: Consent Summons, Ex. 1 attached to Reply, ECF No. 66-1.)

9

However, Plaintiff eventually conceded to Defendant’s interpretation of the Settlement

10

Letter and agreed that the settlement would also apply to Mr. Bochenko. (See Text Messages,

11

Ex. B attached to Reply to Mtn to Seal, ECF No. 41-2; Randazza Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF No. 66-3.)

12

After discussing the issue with Defendant’s local counsel, Mr. David Kahn, Plaintiff’s counsel

13

agreed to Defense Counsel’s interpretation and said he would back down from his interpretation

14

that the settlement was only with Defendant. (See id.)
DISCUSSION

15
16

17

A.

Legal Standard
“It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an

18

agreement to settle a case pending before it. However, the district court may enforce only

19

complete settlement agreements.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations

20

omitted). “Whether the parties intended only to be bound upon the execution of a written,

21

signed agreement is a factual issue.” Id. at 890-91. “In addition to the intent of the parties to

22

bind themselves, the formation of a settlement contract requires agreement on its material

23

terms.” Id. at 891. “Because a settlement agreement is a contract, its construction and

24

enforcement are governed by principles of contract law.” May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257

25

(Nev. 2005) (footnote omitted).

Page 3 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 4 of 8

Under Nevada law, “[b]asic contract principles require, for an enforceable contract, an

1
2

offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration.” Id. (footnote omitted). “A valid

3

contract cannot exist when material terms are lacking or are insufficiently certain and definite.”

4

Id. (footnote omitted). “A contract can be formed, however, when the parties have agreed to the

5

material terms, even though the contract’s exact language is not finalized until later.” Id.

6

(footnote omitted). Ordinarily, “[w]here a complete contract was made orally, the fact that it

7

was expected that a written contract would afterwards be signed, embodying the terms of the

8

oral contract, does not prevent the oral contract from taking effect.” Micheletti v. Fugitt, 134

9

P.2d 99, 104 (Nev. 1943).
“In the case of a settlement agreement, a court cannot compel compliance when material

10
11

terms remain uncertain.” May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d at 1257 (footnote omitted). “The court

12

must be able to ascertain what is required of the respective parties.” Id. (footnote omitted).

13

“[T]he question of whether a contract exists is one of fact.” Id.

14

“[T]he evidence that the parties intended to be presently bound must be convincing and

15

subject to no other reasonable interpretation.” Tropicana Hotel Corporation v. Speer, 692 P.2d

16

499, 502 (Nev. 1985) (examining manifestations of the parties’ intent regarding the finality of an

17

oral contract); see also Mack v. Estate of Mack, 206 P.3d 98, 108 (Nev. 2009) (concluding that

18

“substantial evidence exists that shows a meeting of the minds between the parties” “based on

19

[opposing party]’s clear assent to the terms of the settlement agreement at the hearings held by

20

[the judge]”).

21

B.

Analysis

22

The Court first looks at the Settlement Letter to determine if the parties intended to be

23

presently bound by the terms within. Defendant describes the letter as a “draft term sheet for

24

review by Plaintiff’s counsel, setting out certain terms of a proposed settlement.” (Response,

25

4:18-19, ECF No. 44, citing Lieberman Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) At the top of this letter the subject line

Page 4 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 5 of 8

1

reads “Potential Settlement.” (Settlement Letter, pg. 1.) The first line of the letter states “[t]his

2

letter is to memorialize what I believe is the settlement terms we are currently at for Liberty

3

Media Holdings (LMH).” (Id.) The last page of the letter includes the following language: “[i]f

4

you agree to these terms for your client please sign on the line below and return.” (Id. at pg. 3.)

5

There is nothing in the Settlement Letter that indicates that Defendant did not intend to be

6

presently bound by the proposed terms or that a future writing was required. The requirement

7

for the Plaintiff’s attorney to sign and return indicates that the parties do agree that all these

8

terms are acceptable and binding. If this was only a proposal of terms there probably would not

9

be a requirement for Plaintiff’s counsel to sign and return.

10

Moreover, Defendant does not argue that it did not intend to be bound by the terms once

11

the letter was signed. Instead Defendant only points to statements made by Plaintiff after

12

signing the letter that it argues indicates the negotiations were ongoing. Defendant argues that

13

the settlement was not final because the letter sent by Plaintiff to LeaseWeb states that

14

“Oron.com is on the eve of making a deal with us.” Likewise Defendant argues that the

15

stipulation submitted to the court to delay the hearing on the permanent injunction motion does

16

not state that a settlement was reached and that Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments indicating that

17

“the settlement we brokered is going off the rails,” is further proof of no settlement.

18

However, the Court is not persuaded that any of these statements are sufficient evidence

19

to indicate that the parties did not intend to be bound by the terms in the signed Settlement

20

Letter. The comment that “Oron.com is on the eve of making a deal” only indicates that

21

documents have not been finalized. A contract can be formed so long as the parties agree to the

22

material terms, even though the contract’s exact language is not finalized until later. See May,

23

119 P.3d 1254 at 1257. The stipulation submitted to the Court likewise makes no concession

24

regarding the state of the settlement negotiations. Finally, the comments that the “settlement we

25

brokered is going off the rails” including the context of the e-mail actually indicates the

Page 5 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

1
2

Filed 08/07/12 Page 6 of 8

contrary, that Defendant was not holding up its end of the bargain.
Thus the Court needs to determine if all the material terms of the contract were agreed to

3

in the Settlement Letter. Defendant claims that it understood the Settlement Letter would

4

release all defendants from the claims by Plaintiff. The e-mail correspondence that took place

5

on July 3, 2012, however, demonstrates that Plaintiff believed the Settlement Letter only applied

6

to Defendant and not Mr. Bochenko. The parties’ correspondence on July 3, 2012, makes clear

7

that the avoidance of future litigation was a goal of Defendant in seeking the settlement. (See E-

8

mails.) Defendant argues that it always believed that it could not ensure future litigation arising

9

from the facts of this case if Mr. Bochenko was not also dismissed with prejudice. “If the

10

prevention of future litigation is one of the primary goals of a settlement, the essential terms of

11

the release needed to achieve that goal are material to the settlement agreement.” May, 119 P.3d

12

at 1258. Thus it does appear there was no meeting of the minds regarding a material term of the

13

settlement at the time of the Settlement Letter. However, the issue then becomes whether or not

14

Plaintiff’s latter acceptance of Defendant’s proposed interpretation of the settlement term – a

15

latter “meeting of the minds” – constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement.

16

Plaintiff’s counsel orally accepted Defendant’s interpretation of the released parties in his

17

conversation with local counsel David Kahn on July 5, 2012, and also sent the same in a text

18

message to Mr. Lieberman. (Randazza Decl. attached to Reply, ECF No. 66-3.) There can be no

19

dispute that there was a meeting of the minds regarding the material term at that point.

20

Defendant cannot simply disregard Plaintiff’s acceptance of its settlement term and argue that

21

there was never a “meeting of the minds” because there obviously was at some point. It does

22

not matter that some of the material terms are agreed to orally so long as there was intent to be

23

bound by the agreement. See May, 119 P.3d 1254 at 1257. Defendant cannot plausibly claim

24

that it no longer intended to be bound by all the other terms of the Settlement Letter when it “got

25

its way” on the one material term in dispute.

Page 6 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 7 of 8

1

The Court finds that there is an enforceable contract. The Settlement Letter written by

2

Defendant was an offer, accepted by Plaintiff when its counsel signed the letter. There was a

3

meeting of the minds as to all material terms on July 5, 2012, when Plaintiff agreed that the

4

settlement would include dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Bochenko. There settlement includes

5

valuable consideration on the part of both Plaintiff and Defendant. In this case, the Court can

6

compel compliance because there are no uncertain material terms that remain. Accordingly, the

7

Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.2

8

C.

Motion to Seal

9

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal (ECF No. 32) its Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No.

10

33) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff explains that it wishes to file these

11

two motions with accompanied exhibits under seal because they include discussions of the

12

settlement agreement which was supposed to be confidential. Defendant filed a fiery opposition

13

explaining that the motions should not be filed under seal because the terms had already been

14

leaked to the media and that Plaintiff has not proffered any other reason to file the documents

15

under seal. (See Opposition, ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff basically withdraws its motion in its Reply.

16

Plaintiff acknowledges that if Defendant does not want the documents filed under seal then it

17

will not continue to move for such protection. (See Reply, ECF No. 41.) Accordingly, the Court

18

does not see any reason to grant the Motion to Seal.
CONCLUSION

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC’s Motion to

20
21

Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against

22
23
24
25

2

The Court recognizes that Defendant has always challenged personal jurisdiction in this case. (See Response to PI, ECF No.
71; Mtn to Dismiss, ECF No. 73.) However, Defendant waived personal jurisdiction as to the enforcement of the settlement
agreement when it agreed to settle this case with Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over
Defendant for the sole purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.

Page 7 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 85

Filed 08/07/12 Page 8 of 8

1

“FF Magnat Limited, d/b/a/ Oron.com” and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $550,000.00,

2

and execution of that amount shall be issued forthwith.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FF Magnat’s account shall remain frozen, in order to

4

satisfy any fee award, which may be sought by Plaintiff, but which must be brought within thirty

5

(30) days of this Order.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice against
Defendant FF Magnat and Defendant Maxim Bochenko.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
All documents filed under seal shall be immediately unsealed by the Clerk.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions at ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 21, 68, 70 and 73
are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 34)
remains under submission with the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion hearing scheduled for Thursday, August
9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7D, is hereby VACATED.
DATED this 7th day of August, 2012.

17
18
19
20

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

Page 8 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 86

Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 1

2AO450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Nevada

DISTRICT OF
Liberty Media Holdings LLC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Plaintiff,

V.
FF Magnat Limited d/b/a Oron.com;
Maxim Bochenko a/k/a roman Romanov

Case Number: 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has d
d rendered its verdict.
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a
d decision has been rendered.
Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment. A notice of acceptance with offer of judgment has been filed in this
d case.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $550,000.00 and against Defendant "FF Magnat Limited,
d/b/a Oron.com", and execution of that amount shall be issued forthwith.

August 7, 2012
Date

/s/ Lance S. Wilson
Clerk

/s/ Molly Morrison
(By) Deputy Clerk