LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 9/4/2018. (jv)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL LINDVALL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
9/4/2018
S/J.Vasquez
Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-00030
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc. (LHF) alleges that defendants Russell Lindvall, Shaun
Robertson, Kenny Richardson, and Jennifer Robinson have infringed upon its copyright to the
film London Has Fallen. (Second Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 28.) Before the court are plaintiff’s
motions for default judgment against the defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 41, 43, 45, 47.) For the reasons
stated herein, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions for default judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
LHF holds the copyright to the 2016 action film London Has Fallen.1 (See Second Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8.) On May 12, 2016, LHF sued Does 1 through 10 for copyright infringement,
alleging that they had willfully violated LHF’s copyright to the film by using a BitTorrent
1
The second amended complaint alleges both that LHF holds the copyright to London Has Fallen and that
LHF has only filed a pending copyright application. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 12.) The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not yet settled whether a copyright application or a copyright registration is
required to succeed on a claim for copyright infringement. Caner v. Autry, 16 F. Supp. 3d 689, 707 (W.D. Va.
2014) (Moon, J.). However, the court need not resolve that issue here because the court may take judicial notice of
LHF’s copyright registration for London Has Fallen, as recorded by the United States Copyright Office. See
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=London%20Has
%20Fallen&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=5x1a2MbNNaXpIsiZT6VouGaW1sHM&SEQ=2018031212020
0&SID=1; see also Island Software & Comput. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir. 2005)
(upholding a district court’s decision to take judicial notice of a company’s federal copyright registrations, as
published in the Copyright Office’s registry, because they could be found in a source “‘whose accuracy cannot be
reasonably questioned’”).
protocol to copy and distribute it. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 14–17, Dkt. No. 1.) LHF identified the
defendants through their IP addresses and then filed a second amended complaint listing the
defendants by name. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) After LHF properly served the defendants and
the time to respond to the pleading passed, LHF moved for entry of default against them. The
clerk of the court entered the defaults pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). LHF
has now moved for default judgment against the defendants.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
To obtain a default judgment, the moving party must comply with the two-step process
set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Jefferson v. Briner, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 430,
433 (E.D. Va. 2006). First, the moving party must obtain an entry of default from the clerk of
the court pursuant to Rule 55(a). Second, the moving party must file a motion for default
judgment under Rule 55(b).
In deciding whether liability has been established for default judgment, the court accepts
as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An
allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive
pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.”); see also Ryan v. Homecomings Fin.
Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s
well-pleaded allegations of fact.”) (internal citation omitted)). If liability is established, then the
court may award an appropriate amount of damages without a hearing, provided that the record
contains sufficient evidence to support the award. Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ.
& Employment of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 507 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that “in some
circumstances a district court entering a default judgment may award damages ascertainable
2
from the pleadings without holding a hearing”); Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v.
Capital Restoration & Painting Co., 919 F. Supp. 2d 680, 684 (D. Md. 2013) (finding that the
court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine damages and “may rely instead on
affidavits or documentary evidence in the record to determine the appropriate sum”).
B. Liability
To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove two elements: “(1) ownership
of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist
Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). LHF has alleged that it owns the
copyright to London Has Fallen and that the defendants copied the film. (Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 8, 14–16.) Because the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true
upon default, LHF has established that defendants violated LHF’s copyright to London Has
Fallen. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 14–16.) Accordingly, the court will enter default
judgment in LHF’s favor.
C. Injunctive Relief
LHF seeks to permanently enjoin each of the defendants from future infringements of its
copyright to London Has Fallen. The Copyright Act provides that “[a]ny court having
jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may . . . grant temporary and final injunctions
on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.”
17 U.S.C. § 502(a). Where, as here, the plaintiff has established a claim of copyright
infringement, courts have routinely entered permanent injunctions. See, e.g., ME2 Prods., Inc. v.
Ahmed, No. 3:17-cv-00002, 2018 WL 585547, at *2 (W.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2018) (awarding
injunctive relief where plaintiff established copyright infringement for a default judgment motion
and the record lacked any indication that the defendants would refrain from future
3
infringements); M.L.E. Music v. Kimble, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 2d 469, 473–74 (S.D.W. Va. 2000)
(“Various district courts within this circuit have held that when a claim of copyright infringement
has been proven, a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringements is appropriate and
routinely entered.”). Thus, the court will permanently enjoin each of the defendants from future
infringement of LHF’s copyright to London Has Fallen.
D. Statutory Damages
LHF also seeks statutory damages in the amount of $6,000.00 against each defendant.
Under the Copyright Act, a court may not award statutory damages for any one work in an
amount “less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.” 17 U.S.C.
§ 504(c)(1). However, within that range, the court enjoys wide discretion to set the amount of
damages. See F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 231–32 (1952).
Courts have identified three factors as relevant in exercising their discretion to set statutory
damages in copyright infringement cases: “‘(1) the expenses saved and profits reaped by
defendants in connection with the infringements; (2) revenues lost by the plaintiffs; and (3)
whether the infringement was wil[l]ful and knowing or whether it was accidental or innocent.’”
ME2 Prods., Inc., 2018 WL 585547, at *2 (quoting Jasperilla Music Co., M.C.A., Inc. v. Wing’s
Lounge Ass’n, 837 F. Supp. 159, 161 (S.D.W. Va. 1993)).
A “‘recent trend’” has emerged “‘in courts across the country . . . to award the minimum
statutory award of $750.00 per violation’ in infringement cases brought by ‘copyright holders
who seek copyright infringement damages not to be made whole, but rather as a primary or
secondary revenue stream and [who] file mass lawsuits against anonymous Doe defendants with
the hopes of coercing settlements.’” See id. (quoting Malibu Media, LLC v. [Redacted], No. 14cv-00261, 2017 WL 633315, at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2017)). LHF has sued multiple Doe
4
defendants in this district alone. The court believes that this lawsuit aligns with the trend of
copyright holders seeking damages as a revenue stream. Accordingly, the court is persuaded by
the cases limiting damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) to the statutory minimum and will
therefore award to plaintiff $750.00, without interest, from each of the four defendants. The
court recognizes this amount as sufficient to compensate LHF for the harm in this case and to
deter future infringement. The court declines to award a greater amount under 17 U.S.C.
§ 504(c)(2) based on LHF’s allegation of willful infringement.
E. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Finally, LHF requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs against each of the
defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 41, 43, 45, 47.) Section 505 of the Copyright Act permits a court to
award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
LHF requests $2,520.00 in attorney’s fees from each defendant. Per defendant, that
amount reflects 8.4 hours of work at a rate of $300.00 per hour. To determine the reasonableness
of counsel’s requested fee, the court considers the following 12 factors set forth by the Fourth
Circuit:
(1) The time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of
the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the
legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in
pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work;
(6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the
time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the
amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience,
reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the
case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the
nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney
and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.
McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 n.5 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based
on these factors, the court does not find counsel’s requested fee to be reasonable. Counsel filed
5
formulaic complaints and motions in this case, as well as in a related case pending before this
court. Accordingly, the court is unconvinced that counsel reasonably expended 8.4 hours per
defendant. Nor does the court believe that this case involves novel or difficult questions or
requires a high level of skill. A lower attorney’s fee than requested is also consistent with the
court’s decision not to award LHF the amount of statutory damages requested but to instead
award the lower amount of $750.00. Finally, the court notes that plaintiff’s counsel recently
received $600.00 per defendant in a substantially similar case filed in this district. See ME2
Prods., Inc., 2018 WL 585547, at *4. In light of the factors listed above, this court believes that
two hours per defendant at a rate of $300.00 per hour is reasonable. Thus, the court will require
the defendants to each pay $600.00 for attorney’s fees in this case.
The court will also award costs in the amount of $100.00 per defendant to account for the
$400.00 court filing fee. The court declines to award the remaining costs requested.2
III. CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions for default judgment
against Lindvall, Robertson, Richardson, and Robinson (Dkt. Nos. 41, 43, 45, 47). Judgment
will be entered in favor of plaintiff against each of those four defendants in the amount of
$1,450, representing $750 in statutory damages and $700 in attorney’s fees and costs. Those
defendants will also each be permanently enjoined from any further infringement.
Entered: September 4, 2018.
/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
2
The court will exercise its discretion to limit costs in this matter to those recoverable under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920. See ME2 Prods., Inc., 2018 WL 585547, at *4 n.2 (citing Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v.
Lessard Design, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 3d 503, 525 (E.D. Va. 2015)).
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?