LHF Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Default Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion for Default Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Default Judgment by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 16-552RSM ORDER GRANTING IN PART LHF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT v. DOE 1, et al., Defendants. 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc.’s (“LHF”) 18 Motion for Default Judgment against Aaron Lightner (Dkt. #45), Motion for Default Judgment 19 20 Against Donald Reddish (Dkt. #47), and Motion for Default Judgment Against Alexander 21 Cauthorn (Dkt. #49). Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, 22 LHF’s motions for default judgment (Dkts. #45, #47, and #45) are GRANTED IN PART for 23 the reasons discussed below. 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 1 II. 1 BACKGROUND 2 LHF’s motions for default judgment are just a portion of more than fifty default 3 judgment motions filed by LHF in ten of sixteen related cases before the Court. 1 All sixteen 4 cases assert the same cause of action. LHF alleges that close to two hundred named defendants 5 6 unlawfully infringed its exclusive copyright to the motion picture London Has Fallen, which it 7 developed and produced, by copying and distributing the film over the Internet through a peer- 8 to-peer network using the BitTorrent protocol. Dkt. #11 ¶¶ 1. Plaintiff uncovered the identities 9 of the alleged infringers after serving several internet service providers (“ISP”s) with 10 11 subpoenas issued by the Court. Amended complaints identifying the alleged infringers were 12 subsequently filed. Defendants were named in the same Amended Complaint because, given 13 the unique identifier associated with a particular digital copy of London Has Fallen, along with 14 the timeframe when the internet protocol address associated with a named defendant accessed 15 that unique identifier, LHF alleges the Defendants were all part of the same “swarm” of users 16 17 that reproduced, distributed, displayed, and/or performed the copyrighted work. 18 Dkt. #11 ¶¶ 10, 35-36, 41, 46. According to LHF, “[t]he temporal proximity of the observed 19 acts of each Defendant, together with the known propensity of BitTorrent participants to 20 actively exchange files continuously for hours and even days, makes it possible that Defendants 21 either directly exchanged the motion picture with each other, or did so through intermediaries . 22 23 . . .” Dkt. #11 ¶ 31. 24 In the instant action, Defendants Lightner, Reddish, and Cauthorn (collectively 25 “Defendants”) did not respond to LHF’s Amended Complaint. The Court entered default 26 against Defendant Lightner and Defendant Reddish on September 29, 2016, after both parties 27 28 See Case Nos. C16-551RSM, C16-552RSM, C16-621RSM, C16-623RSM, C16-731RSM, C16-864RSM, C16-865RSM, C16-1015RSM, C16-1017RSM, C16-1175RSM, C16-1089RSM, C16-1090RSM, C16-1273RSM, C16-1354RSM, C16-1588RSM, and C16-1648RSM. 1 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 2 1 failed to respond to LHF’s Amended Complaint. See Dkts. #33 and #34. Default against 2 Defendant Cauthorn was entered on October 4, 2016. Dkt. #37. LHF’s motions for default 3 judgment against Defendants are now before the Court. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 6 Based on this Court’s Order of Default and pursuant to Rule 55(a), the Court has the 7 authority to enter a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). However, prior to entering default 8 judgment, the Court must determine whether the well-pleaded allegations of a plaintiff’s 9 complaint establish a defendant’s liability. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 10 11 1986). In making this determination, courts must accept the well-pleaded allegations of a 12 complaint, except those related to damage amounts, as established fact. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. 13 Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). If those facts establish liability the court 14 may, but has no obligation to, enter a default judgment against a defendant. Alan Neuman 15 Prods. Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Clearly, the decision to enter a 16 17 18 default judgment is discretionary.”). Plaintiffs must provide the court with evidence to establish the propriety of a particular sum of damages sought. Televideo, 826 F.2d at 917-18. 19 A. Liability Determination. 20 The allegations in LHF’s Amended Complaint establish Defendants’ liability for 21 copyright infringement. To establish copyright infringement, LHF must demonstrate 22 23 ownership of a valid copyright and that Defendants copied “constituent elements of the work 24 that are original.” L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 25 2012) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). Here, 26 LHF alleges it owns the exclusive copyright to the motion picture London Has Fallen. Dkt. 27 28 #11 ¶¶ 5-9. LHF also alleges that Defendants all participated in the same “swarm” that ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 3 1 unlawfully copied and/or distributed the same digital copy of London Has Fallen. Id. ¶¶ 10, 2 36, 41, 46. Because Defendants did not respond to LHF’s complaint, the Court must accept the 3 allegations in LHF’s Amended Complaint as true. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(b)(6). Accordingly, 4 LHF has established Defendants’ liability. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 B. Default Judgment is Warranted. The Court must next determine whether to exercise discretion to enter a default judgment. Courts consider the following factors in making this determination: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. The majority of these factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment against 15 Defendants. LHF may be prejudiced without the entry of default judgment as it will be left 16 without a legal remedy. See Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 17 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (finding plaintiff would suffer prejudice where denying default judgment 18 would leave plaintiff without remedy). LHF’s Amended Complaint is also sufficient, and 19 20 Defendants did not present any evidence or argument to the contrary. Additionally, the Court 21 finds there is a low probability that default against Defendants was due to excusable neglect; 22 Defendants were given ample opportunity to respond to the filings in this matter between the 23 time they were served with LHF’s Amended Complaint and when LHF filed its motions for 24 25 default judgment. Finally, although there is a strong policy favoring decisions on the merits, 26 the Court may consider Defendants’ failure to respond to LHF’s Amended Complaint and its 27 subsequent motions as an admission that LHF’s motions have merit. See Local Civil Rule 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 4 1 7(b)(2) (“[I]f a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be 2 considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.”). 3 4 However, the Court acknowledges that a dispute concerning the material facts alleged by LHF may arise. See Qotd Film Inv. Ltd. v. Starr, No. C16-0371RSL, 2016 WL 5817027, at 5 6 *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2016) (acknowledging that dispute concerning material facts may arise 7 in BitTorrent infringement cases). The Court also acknowledges that the amount at stake is 8 not, as LHF contends, modest – LHF seeks enhanced statutory damages in the amount of 9 $2,500 along with $2,650.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $160 in costs, for each named Defendant in 10 11 this matter. Notwithstanding these considerations, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting 12 default judgment against Defendants. 13 C. Appropriate Relief. 14 The Court next considers what relief to grant LHF. LHF seeks the following three 15 categories of relief from each defendant: (1) permanent injunctive relief; (2) statutory damages; 16 17 18 and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. Each category is discussed in turn below. i. Permanent Injunctive Relief 19 Permanent injunctive relief is proper in this matter. Section 502(a) of Title 17 of the 20 United States Code allows courts to “grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it 21 may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” As part of a default 22 23 judgment, courts may also order the destruction of all copies of a work made or used in 24 violation of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. § 503(b). Given the nature of the 25 BitTorrent system, and because Defendants have been found liable for infringement, the Court 26 finds Defendants possess the means to continue infringing in the future. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. 27 28 Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (granting permanent injunction where ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 5 1 “liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations.”). Consequently, 2 the Court GRANTS LHF’s request for a permanent injunction against Defendants. The Court 3 will issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from infringing LHF’s rights in London 4 Has Fallen. The Court will also order Defendants to destroy all unauthorized copies of London 5 6 7 Has Fallen. ii. Statutory Damages 8 The Court will also award LHF $750 in statutory damages for Defendants’ infringement 9 of the same “seed” file of London Has Fallen. The Copyright Act allows plaintiffs to choose 10 11 between actual or statutory damages. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(b), (c)(1). The range of statutory 12 damages allowed for all infringements involved in an action, with respect to any one work for 13 which any two or more infringers are jointly and severally liable, is $750 to $30,000. 14 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(1). District courts have “wide discretion in determining the amount of 15 statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only by the specified maxima and minima,” and 16 17 they can take into account whether “the recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by 18 defendant’s conduct.” Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984); 19 Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting 20 Landstar, 725 F. Supp. 2d at 921). Because the named Defendants in this action were alleged 21 to have conspired with one another to infringe the same digital copy of LHF’s motion picture, 22 23 24 the Court will award the sum of $750 for Defendants’ infringement of the same digital copy of London Has Fallen. Each of the Defendants is jointly and severally liable for this amount. 25 LHF argues that a statutory damage award of $2,500 per defendant should be awarded. 26 The Court is not persuaded. Statutory damages are not intended to serve as a windfall to 27 28 plaintiffs, and enhanced statutory damages are not warranted where plaintiffs do not even try to ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 6 1 demonstrate actual damages. Additionally, the Court notes that LHF has not shown that any of 2 the Defendants is responsible for the “seed” file that provided LHF’s copyrighted work on the 3 BitTorrent network, and LHF has not presented evidence that Defendants profited from the 4 infringement. 5 6 LHF’s additional attempts to justify imposing enhanced statutory damages are also 7 unpersuasive. See Dkts. #45 at 5-6, #47 at 5-6, and #49 at 5-6. In support of an enhanced 8 award, LHF argues that minimum statutory awards fail to accomplish the goals of the 9 Copyright Act; LHF argues that defendants are actually encouraged to disregard court 10 11 summons and take default judgments when courts award minimum statutory damages. Id. The 12 Court is not convinced. As noted in other BitTorrent cases within this jurisdiction, “[p]laintiff 13 offers no support for the proposition that participation in federal litigation should be compelled 14 by imposing draconian penalties that are out of proportion to the harm caused” by a defendant’s 15 actions. Qotd Film, 2016 WL 5817027, at *3, n.2. 16 17 LHF also cites to tweets which appear to mock statutory minimum awards in other 18 BitTorrent cases. See Dkts. #46, Exs. C and D, #48, Exs. C and D, and #50, Exs. C and D. The 19 Court is not persuaded that viewpoints of individuals not named as defendants in this matter 20 should be attributed to Defendants. LHF has presented no evidence that Defendants in this case 21 will not be dissuaded from infringing in the future. Many barriers to accessing and 22 23 understanding the legal system exist, and the Court refuses, absent evidence to the contrary, to 24 adopt the position advocated by LHF. The Court “is [thus] not persuaded that a higher award is 25 appropriate simply because certain members of the BitTorrent community are not impressed by 26 a $750 award against someone they do not know.” Qotd Film, 2016 WL 5817027, at *3. 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 7 1 2 3 4 iii. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Finally, LHF asks the Court to award $2,650.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $160 in costs, against each named Defendant in this matter. Dkts. #46 ¶¶ 11-12, #48 ¶¶ 11-12, and #50 ¶¶ 11-12. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, the Court “in its discretion may allow the recovery 5 6 7 of full costs by or against any party,” and “may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 8 The Court agrees that LHF should be awarded attorneys’ fees. Courts consider several 9 factors, including “(1) the degree of success obtained, (2) frivolousness, (3) motivation, (4) 10 11 objective unreasonableness (legal and factual), and (5) the need to advance considerations of 12 compensation and deterrence,” when making attorneys’ fee determinations under the Copyright 13 Act. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1221 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Jackson v. Axton, 25 F.3d 14 884, 890 (9th Cir. 1994)). Because LHF has succeeded on its non-frivolous claims, and 15 because an award would advance considerations of compensation and deterrence, LHF is 16 17 entitled to attorneys’ fees. 18 However, LHF’s attorneys’ fees request is problematic. Courts determine fee award 19 amounts by first determining a “lodestar figure,” which is obtained by multiplying the number 20 of hours reasonably expended on a matter by the reasonable hourly rate. 21 Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts may then adjust the lodestar with Intel Corp. v. 22 23 reference to factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir. 24 1975). The relevant Kerr factors here are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and 25 difficulty of the questions; and (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly. 26 “The lodestar amount presumably reflects the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special 27 28 skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 8 1 litigation.” Intel, 6 F.3d at 622. Given the nature of the work done by attorney David A. Lowe, 2 the Court does not find LHF’s requested hourly rate, or the number of hours requested, to be 3 reasonable. 4 1. Reasonableness of Rate Requested 5 6 In the Ninth Circuit, the determination of a reasonable hourly rate “is not made by 7 reference to rates actually charged the prevailing party.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 8 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, the reasonable hourly rate is determined with reference to 9 the prevailing rates charged by attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the relevant 10 11 community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). “Generally, when determining a 12 reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” 13 Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts may also consider 14 “rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney” 15 as “satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps 16 17 Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). 18 Here, Mr. Lowe argues that $450 is a reasonable rate for his work. However, Mr. Lowe 19 does not present any evidence that this is the prevailing rate in this community, and similar 20 cases in this District suggest that a lower rate is appropriate. See Qotd Film, 2016 WL 5817027 21 at *3-4 (refusing to award requested rate of $450 where counsel did not present evidence that 22 23 this was prevailing community rate). Notably, in two unrelated BitTorrent cases litigated by 24 Mr. Lowe, courts in this District have awarded Mr. Lowe a rate of $350 and $300 for work 25 similar, if not identical, to the work done in this matter. See Id. (reducing counsel’s hourly rate 26 to $350); also Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Nydam, et al., 2016 WL 7719874, at *5-6 (W.D. 27 28 Wash. August 8, 2016) (reducing counsel’s hourly rate to $300). In Dallas Buyers Club, the ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 9 1 Court reasoned that an hourly rate of $300 is far more appropriate because the cases litigated by 2 Mr. Lowe did not require extensive skill or experience. 2016 WL 7719847 at *6. Indeed, it 3 appears that in litigating Dallas Buyers Club, Mr. Lowe, similar to his actions in this case, 4 recycled pleadings used in other cases and encountered little or no opposition from the named 5 6 defendants. Id. Given that Mr. Lowe’s work in this matter amounts to nothing more than form 7 pleading, the Court adopts the reasoning of other BitTorrent cases in this District and will 8 reduce Mr. Lowe’s hourly rate to $300. 9 10 11 2. Reasonableness of Hours Requested Turning to the reasonableness of the hours requested, the Court notes the party seeking 12 fees “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate 13 hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Court 14 also excludes hours that are not reasonably expended because they are “excessive, redundant, 15 or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that it is reasonable 16 17 for a district court to conclude that the party seeking attorney’s fees fails to carry its burden of 18 documenting the hours expended when that party engages in “block billing” because block 19 billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular activities. 20 Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). 21 Mr. Lowe requests an unreasonable number of hours. In support of his attorneys’ fees 22 23 request, Mr. Lowe has submitted three, nearly identical, declarations requesting compensation 24 for 3.9 hours he allegedly spent on each named Defendant. Dkts. #46 ¶ 10, #48 ¶ 10, and 25 #60 ¶ 10. Mr. Lowe also requests fees for the 1.9 hours his associate attorney spent on each 26 named Defendant (at an hourly rate of $250), and fees for the 2.9 hours his legal assistant spent 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 10 1 on each named Defendant (at an hourly rate of $145). Id. Mr. Lowe’s activity within this 2 District underscores the unreasonableness of this request. 3 4 Since April 2016, Mr. Lowe has filed sixteen cases, each naming LHF as plaintiff, against hundreds of doe defendants. 2 These cases have all proceeded in a similar manner. 5 6 Each of the complaints originally filed in these sixteen cases lists doe defendants, identified 7 only by IP addresses, and alleges infringement of LHF’s exclusive rights in the motion picture 8 London Has Fallen. Groups of doe defendants are named in the same complaint because they 9 allegedly infringed the same digital copy of London Has Fallen by participating in the same 10 11 BitTorrent “swarm.” After nearly identical complaints were filed, LHF, in all sixteen cases, 12 filed nearly identical motions for expedited discovery. Once the Court granted LHF’s motions 13 for expedited discovery, LHF then served subpoenas on the ISPs associated with each Doe 14 Defendant’s IP address. Once the ISPs provided LHF with the Doe Defendants’ identities, 15 LHF filed amended complaints. Except for the paragraphs identifying the Doe Defendants, all 16 17 18 of the amended complaints are identical. As of the filing of this Order, LHF has named 181 defendants. 19 After amending its complaints, LHF voluntarily dismissed claims against some named 20 defendants. If a claim is not settled, LHF continues to pursue its claim against the named 21 defendants. Many of the remaining defendants have not answered LHF’s amended complaints. 22 23 A named defendant’s failure to respond to LHF’s amended complaints then prompts LHF to 24 file a motion for default. To date the Court has granted fifty-eight of LHF’s motions for default 25 in eleven of LHF’s sixteen cases; LHF is still awaiting response from named defendants in the 26 five remaining cases. Except for the captions, the motions for default are identical. After the 27 2 28 See Case Nos. C16-551RSM, C16-552RSM, C16-621RSM, C16-623RSM, C16-731RSM, C16-864RSM, C16-865RSM, C16-1015RSM, C16-1175RSM, C16-1017RSM, C16-1089RSM, C16-1090RSM, C16-1273RSM, C16-1354RSM, C16-1588RSM, C16-1648RSM. ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 11 1 Court grants LHF’s motions for default, LHF files nearly identical motions for default 2 judgment. 3 4 While there is nothing wrong with LHF’s filing of several infringement claims, it is wrong for LHF’s counsel to file identical complaints and motions with the Court and then 5 6 expect the Court to believe that it spent hundreds of hours preparing those same complaints and 7 motions. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Schelling, 31 F. Supp. 3d 910, 912-13 (E.D. Mich. 2014) 8 (“If Malibu Media is experiencing a massive invasion of infringers, it is entitled to seek redress 9 through the courts.”). In this case, Mr. Lowe would have the Court believe that he alone spent 10 11 185 hours in preparing the filings of the fifty-one named Defendants against whom default 12 judgment is now sought. This extravagant number of hours does not include the 138.6 hours 13 claimed by Mr. Lowe’s associate attorney, or the 130.4 hours attributed to Mr. Lowe’s legal 14 assistant. 15 16 17 There is nothing unique, or complex, about engaging in what can only be described as “the essence of form pleading,” and the Court will not condone unreasonable attorneys’ fees 18 requests. Malibu, 31 F. Supp. 3d at 912-13 (“[T]here is nothing unique about this case against 19 [defendant], it is quite a stretch to suggest that drafting and preparing the complaint for filing 20 took more than an hour, or that 1.3 hours were spent on drafting a motion for default 21 judgment.”). Here, aside from requesting an unbelievable number of hours, Mr. Lowe has also 22 23 engaged in the practice of block billing. See Dkts. #46 ¶ 10, #48 ¶ 10, and #50 ¶ 10. Given this 24 practice, the Court cannot adequately determine the amount of time spent on several of the 25 tasks Mr. Lowe requests compensation for. However, even if he had not engaged in this 26 practice, the Court finds it hard to believe that Mr. Lowe and his associate attorney spent 27 28 hundreds of hours to prepare filings in LHF’s related cases that are nearly identical to filings ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 12 1 Mr. Lowe has previously used in unrelated cases. See, e.g., Case Nos. C16-371RSL and C14- 2 1684RAJ. 3 4 Instead of awarding the unreasonable number of hours requested by LHF, the Court will award Mr. Lowe one (1) hour, at an hourly rate of $300, to compensate his firm for the time he 5 6 worked on each named Defendant, and one (1) hour, at an hourly rate of $250, to compensate 7 his firm for the time his associate attorney worked on each named Defendant. The Court will 8 not award any of the time attributed to Mr. Lowe’s legal assistant; review of the declarations 9 submitted indicate that Mr. Lowe’s legal assistant performed purely administrative tasks in this 10 11 matter. See Dkt. #46 ¶ 10 (descriptions include “[p]repare, print and mail waiver, request to 12 waive summons, and amended complaint,” and “[p]rovide summons, amended complaint to 13 process server”); also Dkts. #48 ¶ 10 (same), #50 ¶ 10 (same). 14 The Court is satisfied that an attorneys’ fee of $550 per Defendant is reasonable and 15 sufficient to cover Mr. Lowe’s form-pleading work. The requested costs from each named 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant can be recovered in full. IV. CONCLUSION The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, finds adequate bases for default judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 1. LHF’s motions for default judgment (Dkts. #45, #47, and #49) are GRANTED IN PART. 2. Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from directly, indirectly, or contributorily infringing LHF’s exclusive rights in the motion picture film London Has Fallen, including without limitation by using the Internet to reproduce or copy London Has Fallen, to distribute London Has Fallen, or to make London Has Fallen available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to lawful written license or with the express authority of LHF; 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 3. To the extent any such material exists, Defendants are directed to destroy all unauthorized copies of London Has Fallen in their possession or subject to their control; 4. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for statutory damages in the amount of $750; 5. Defendant Aaron Lightner is individually liable for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $550 and costs in the amount of $160. 6. Defendant Donald Reddish is individually liable for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $550 and costs in the amount of $160. 7. Defendant Alexander Cauthorn is individually liable for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $550 and costs in the amount of $160. 8. This matter is now CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment consistent with this Order. DATED this 15th day of February, 2017. 16 17 18 19 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 14

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?