UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff UN4's Motions for Default Judgment against defendants Dimitria Omelco and Marlene Reynier (Dkts. 38 , 40 ). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for the amounts specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

Case No. C17-0786RSL

UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART UN4’S
MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
DIMITRIA OMELCO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff UN4’s motions for default
judgment against defendants Dimitria Omelco (Dkt. #38) and Marlene Reynier (Dkt.
#40). Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, UN4’s
motions for default judgment are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
II.

BACKGROUND

The two motions for default judgment that are the subject of this Order are just a

26

portion of the more than one hundred default judgment motions filed by plaintiff’s

27

counsel in twenty-six cases before the undersigned. All of the cases assert essentially

28

the same causes of action based on remarkably similar allegations, although the motion
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 1

1

picture at issue, the owner of the copyright, and the defendants vary. For purposes of

2

these motions, UN4 alleges that 60 individual defendants unlawfully infringed its

3

exclusive copyright to the motion picture Boyka Undisputed 4, which it developed and

4
5

produced, by copying and distributing the film over the Internet through a peer-to-peer

6

network using the BitTorrent protocol. Plaintiff served internet service providers

7

(“ISP”s) with subpoenas in order to identify the alleged infringers. Amended complaints

8
9

identifying defendants by name were subsequently filed.
Defendants Omelco and Reynier (collectively “Defendants”) are named in the

10
11
12
13

same complaint because, given the unique identifier associated with a particular digital
copy of Boyka Undisputed 4 and the timeframe in which the internet protocol address

14

associated with each Defendant accessed that digital copy, UN4 alleges the named

15

Defendants were all part of the same “swarm” of users that reproduced, distributed,

16
17

displayed, and/or performed the copyrighted work. According to UN4, Defendants

18

directly or indirectly shared, downloaded, and distributed a single unique copy of Boyka

19

Undisputed 4 that had been seeded to the torrent network at some undefined point in the

20

past.

21
22

Defendants did not respond to UN4’s complaint. The Clerk of Court therefore

23

entered default against Defendants at UN4’s request. See Dkts. #36-37. UN4 now seeks

24

judgment against each Defendant.

25
26

III.

DISCUSSION

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) authorizes a court to grant default

28

judgment. Prior to entering judgment in defendant’s absence, the Court must determine
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 2

1

whether the allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint establish his or her liability. Eitel v.

2

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The court must accept all well-pled

3

allegations of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount

4
5

of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

6

Where the alleged facts establish a defendant’s liability, the court has discretion, not an

7

obligation, to enter default judgment. Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862

8
9
10
11
12
13

F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). If plaintiff seeks an award of damages, it must provide
the Court with evidence to establish the amount. TeleVideo Sys., 826 F.2d at 917-18.
A. Liability Determination.
The allegations in UN4’s complaint establish Defendants’ liability for direct

14

copyright infringement. To establish direct infringement, UN4 must demonstrate

15

ownership of a valid copyright and that Defendants copied “constituent elements of the

16
17

work that are original.” L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 846

18

(9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361

19

(1991)). Here, UN4 alleges it owns the exclusive copyright to the motion picture Boyka

20

Undisputed 4 and that Defendants participated in a “swarm” to unlawfully copy and/or

21
22

distribute the same unique copy of Boyka Undisputed 4. These allegations were

23

established by entry of default against Defendants. Accordingly, UN4 has established

24

Defendants’ liability for direct copyright infringement.

25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 3

1

B. Default Judgment is Warranted.

2

Having established liability, plaintiff must also show that default judgment is

3

warranted. Courts often apply the factors listed in Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72, to make

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

this determination. Those factors are:
“(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.”
The majority of these factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment against

11
12

Defendants. UN4 may be prejudiced without the entry of default judgment as it will be

13

left without a legal remedy. See Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F.

14

Supp.2d 916, 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010). UN4’s complaint sufficiently alleges a claim of

15
16

direct copyright infringement, and Defendants did not present any evidence or argument

17

to the contrary. Additionally, the Court finds there is a low probability that default against

18

Defendants was due to excusable neglect: Defendants were given ample opportunity to

19
20

respond to the filings in this matter between the time they were served with UN4’s

21

complaint and the date of this Order. Finally, although there is a strong policy favoring

22

decisions on the merits, the Court may consider Defendants’ failure to respond to UN4’s

23
24
25
26
27
28

requests for default and default judgment as admissions that the motions have merit. LCR
7(b)(2).
The Court acknowledges that a dispute concerning the material facts alleged by
UN4, including the identity of the alleged infringers, could arise in this case. The Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 4

1

also acknowledges that the amount at stake may be significant depending on the means

2

of each Defendant. UN4 seeks enhanced statutory damages in the amount of at least

3

$1,500 along with attorneys’ fees of $1,551 and costs of $166 from each individual

4
5
6

Defendant.1 Notwithstanding these considerations, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of
granting default judgment against Defendants.

7

C. Appropriate Relief.

8

UN4 requests entry of a default judgment against each Defendant providing the

9
10

following three categories of relief: (1) permanent injunctive relief; (2) statutory

11

damages; and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. Each category is discussed below.

12

i.

13

Permanent injunctive relief is appropriate. Section 502(a) of Title 17 of the

14
15
16
17

Permanent Injunctive Relief

United States Code allows courts to “grant temporary and final injunctions on such
terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” As

18

part of a default judgment, courts may also order the destruction of all copies of a work

19

made or used in violation of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. § 503(b).

20

Given the nature of the BitTorrent protocol and Defendants’ participation therein, the

21
22

Court finds Defendants possess the means to continue infringing in the future. MAI Sys.

23

Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (granting permanent

24

injunction where “liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing

25
26
27
28

violations.”). Consequently, the Court will issue a permanent injunction enjoining
These fees and costs are sought against defendant Omelco. Plaintiff did not provide a declaration with
the motion for default judgment against defendant Reynier, so the Court is unable to determine what
attorney’s fees and costs are sought from her.
1

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 5

1
2
3

Defendants from infringing UN4’s rights in Boyka Undisputed 4 and directing them to
destroy all unauthorized copies of Boyka Undisputed 4.
ii.

Statutory Damages

4
5

Plaintiff requests an award of statutory damages in the amount of at least $1,500

6

against each Defendant for his or her participation in the BitTorrent swarm that resulted

7

in the unauthorized download and/or distribution of the seed file containing Boyka

8
9

Undisputed 4. Although the actual economic damages associated with a lost video rental

10

are likely minimal, plaintiff correctly points out that Congress has authorized statutory

11

damages in significant amounts to compensate for difficult-to-prove downstream losses

12
13

and to deter future infringement. Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Int’l, Ltd., 149

14

F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d

15

1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 1990)). Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), the Court may award

16
17

statutory damages “for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one

18

work, . . . for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum

19

of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.” The Court has

20

wide discretion when determining the amount of statutory damages and takes into

21
22

consideration the amount of money requested in relation to the seriousness of the

23

defendant’s conduct, whether large sums of money are involved, and whether “the

24

recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by defendant’s conduct.” Curtis v.

25
26
27

Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp.3d 1200, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (citing Landstar,
725 F. Supp. 2d at 921).

28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 6

Copyright violations come in all shapes and sizes, from the unauthorized copying

1
2

of a Halloween word puzzle for a child’s party to the unauthorized manufacture and sale

3

of millions of bootleg copies of a new release. While Defendants’ alleged copyright

4
5

violation is of concern in that it represents a theft of intellectual property, it is a

6

relatively minor infraction causing relatively minor injury. UN4 has not shown that any

7

of the Defendants is responsible for the “seed” file that made UN4’s copyrighted work

8
9

available on the BitTorrent network, nor has UN4 presented evidence that Defendants

10

profited from the infringement in any way. Given the range of statutory damages

11

specified in the Copyright Act, the Court finds that an award of $750 for the swarm-

12
13
14

related infringements involved in this action is appropriate. Each of the Defendants is
jointly and severally liable for this amount.

15
16
17

This award is in line with the awards made by other courts in the Ninth Circuit
and appears adequate to deter Defendants from infringing on plaintiff’s copyright in the

18

future.2 Plaintiff argues that a significantly higher award is necessary to force people

19

like Defendants to appear and participate in these BitTorrent cases. Plaintiff apparently

20

wants the Court to raise the statutory damage award to an amount that is at or above the

21
22
23

anticipated costs of defending this action. A defendant may, however, decide that
conceding liability through default is the best course of action given the nature of the

24
25
26
27
28

UN4 has presented no evidence that Defendants will not be dissuaded from infringing in the future. The
judgment entered in this case, including statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, may be recovered
by garnishing Defendants’ wages and/or seizing and selling their non-exempt property. This is a steep
penalty for having been too lazy to go to the local Redbox or too cheap to pay a few dollars for an
authorized download. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support its contention that personal liability for a
judgment in excess of $500 is of no consequence to the judgment debtor.

2

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 7

1

claims and the available defenses. The “punishment” for that choice is the entry of

2

default judgment and an award of damages under the governing standards. As discussed

3

above, those standards lead to the conclusion that the minimum statutory penalty should

4
5

apply in this case. Plaintiff offers no support for the proposition that participation in

6

federal litigation should be compelled by imposing draconian penalties that are out of

7

proportion to the harm caused by Defendants’ actions or any benefits derived therefrom.

8
9
10

Statutory damages are not intended to serve as a windfall to plaintiffs and will not be
used to provide such a windfall here.

11
12
13

The Court will award UN4 $750 in statutory damages for the infringements
involved in this action, for which defendants are jointly and severally liable.
iii.

14
15
16
17

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Finally, UN4 asks the Court to award $1551.00 in attorneys’ fees and $166.00 in
costs against defendant Omelco in this matter.3 Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, the Court

18

“in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party,” and

19

“may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.”

20

The Court agrees that UN4 should be awarded attorneys’ fees. Courts consider

21
22

several factors, including “(1) the degree of success obtained, (2) frivolousness,

23

(3) motivation, (4) objective unreasonableness (legal and factual), and (5) the need to

24

advance considerations of compensation and deterrence,” when making attorneys’ fee

25
26
27
28

Because plaintiff did not provide a declaration with the motion for default judgment against defendant
Reynier, the Court is unable to determine what attorney’s fees and costs are sought from her. While
plaintiff is entitled to the entry of default judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of statutory damages
against this defendant, the unspecified and unsupported request for fees and costs will be denied.
3

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 8

1

determinations under the Copyright Act. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1221 (9th Cir.

2

1996) (citing Jackson v. Axton, 25 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 1994)). Because UN4 has

3

succeeded on its non-frivolous direct infringement claim4 and because an award would

4
5
6

advance considerations of compensation and deterrence, UN4 is entitled to attorneys’
fees.

7
8
9

However, despite counsel’s efforts to allocate the fees and costs to Omelco, the
overall fee request is problematic. Courts determine the amount of a fee award by

10

determining a “lodestar figure,” which is obtained by multiplying the number of hours

11

reasonably expended on a matter by a reasonable hourly rate. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte

12
13

Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts may then adjust the lodestar with

14

reference to factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70

15

(9th Cir. 1975), to the extent those factors are not already subsumed in counsel’s hourly

16
17

rates or the number of hours expended on the litigation. The relevant Kerr factors here

18

are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; and

19

(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly.

20

1. Reasonableness of Rate Requested

21

In the Ninth Circuit, the determination of a reasonable hourly rate “is not made

22
23

by reference to rates actually charged the prevailing party.” Chalmers v. City of Los

24

Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, the reasonable hourly rate is

25
26

determined with reference to the prevailing rates charged by attorneys of comparable

27
28

Despite the entry of default, the Court specifically declines to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor on its
indirect and contributory infringement claims.

4

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 9

1

skill and experience in the relevant community. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895

2

(1984). “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community

3

is the forum in which the district court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d

4
5

973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts may also consider “rate determinations in other cases,

6

particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney” as “satisfactory evidence of

7

the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896

8
9

F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

10

Identifying counsel’s hourly rate is more challenging than it should be. His

11

hourly rate for “normal” intellectual property cases is now $545/hour, but he has agreed

12
13

to a reduced rate of $350/hour in this case. Dkt. #39 at ¶6. In a similar BitTorrent matter

14

involving another copyright holder, counsel stated that his reduced rate was $450/hour

15

(LHF Prods., Inc. v. Acosta, C16-1175RSM, Dkt. #71 at ¶7), which is the rate he posits

16
17

is “reasonable and warranted in the Seattle area” in this case (Dkt. #39 at ¶8). The Court

18

assumes, based on the fee calculation charts set forth in counsel’s declarations, that he

19

seeks an hourly rate of $350 in this case. This hourly rate is generally within the norm

20

for BitTorrent cases in this district and is a reasonable rate for the type of formulaic

21
22
23
24

legal work performed in these matters.
2. Reasonableness of Hours Requested
Turning to the reasonableness of the hours requested, plaintiff has the burden of

25
26

documenting the hours expended on this matter and establishing their reasonableness.

27

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Court will exclude hours that are

28

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” and therefore not reasonably
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 10

1

expended. Id. at 434. Counsel has attempted to calculate the hours spent in connection

2

with UN4’s claims against each individual Defendant by dividing the total number of

3

hours spent on collective efforts by the total number of defendants at the time the action

4
5

was taken. Time spent working solely in pursuit of claims against an individual are

6

allocated wholly to that individual. Dkt. #39 at ¶9. For Omelco, counsel seeks

7

compensation for the following activities:

8

Activity

9
10

Attorney
Time
.4 hours

Review evidence of BitTorrent activity giving rise to
potential claims
Prepare complaint and supporting exhibits
Prepare and file motion to expedite discovery
Communicate with client
Review Court orders
Prepare subpoena and letter to ISPs
Review ISP response and prepare communications
with Defendant
Review Defendant’s “status and history”
Prepare amended complaint and review
Prepare, review, and file waivers and/or summons
Review file
Prepare and file motion for default
Prepare and file motion for default judgment

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

.3 hours
.6 hours
.1 hours
≈ .1 hours
≈ .2 hours
1 hour

Total:

11

Legal
Assistant
Time

4.1 hours

.4 hours
.4 hours
.1 hours
.2 hours
.1 hours
.2 hours

.3 hours
.2 hours

.3 hours

.8 hours

22
23

These seemingly modest time expenditures mask the reality of counsel’s fee request.

24

Until recently, the BitTorrent cases filed in this district all proceeded in a similar

25
26

manner.5 The original complaints list Doe defendants, identified only by IP addresses,

27
28

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly has required certain additional disclosures or proffers in BitTorrent
cases pending before him. See Venice PI, LLC v. O’Leary, C17-0988TSZ, Dkt. # 32.
5

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 11

1

and allege infringement of the client’s exclusive rights in a specified motion picture.

2

Groups of Doe defendants are named in the same complaint because they allegedly

3

infringed the same digital copy of the copyrighted material by participating in the same

4
5

BitTorrent “swarm.” The nearly identical complaints are accompanied by nearly

6

identical motions for expedited discovery. Once the Court grants leave to conduct

7

expedited discovery, subpoenas are served on the ISP associated with the addresses

8
9

identified in the log attached to the complaint as Exhibit B. Once in possession of the

10

Doe defendants’ identities, counsel attempts to obtain a settlement of the claims and

11

files amended complaints against any non-settling defendants. Service, additional

12
13

settlements, and defaults/default judgments follow, with the exception of a handful of

14

defendants who are actively litigating the cases in this district. On occasion, counsel

15

seeks an extension of time in which to serve.

16
17

Almost every filing in this cause of action was essentially copied from scores of

18

other cases filed by the same counsel. There is nothing wrong with utilizing form

19

documents to pursue identical infringement claims arising from identical activities. As

20

has been previously noted, however, it is wrong for UN4’s counsel to file identical

21
22

complaints and motions with the Court and then expect the Court to believe that he

23

labored over each filing. LHF Prods., C16-1175RSM, Dkt. #73 at 12. To arrive at his

24

per Defendant fee request, counsel divided time entries related to specific activities by

25
26

the number of defendants then in the case. When the relatively small time allotments set

27
28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 12

1

forth in counsel’s declaration related to Omelco are multiplied by the number of

2

defendants, counsel is seeking compensation for an excessive number of hours. Counsel

3

apparently spent 4.4 hours studying the log of infringing transactions and IP addresses

4
5

that gave rise to this particular lawsuit.6 He spent another 4.4 hours generating a

6

complaint that is virtually identical to the complaints UN4 filed in other cases (not to

7

mention the scores of BitTorrent cases filed on behalf of other clients). Altering the

8
9

form complaint to initiate a new lawsuit is, at this point, a word processing chore: the

10

preparer checks to make sure the correct plaintiff and film are identified, changes the

11

number of Doe defendants in the caption, inserts the correct IP addresses in the section

12
13

of the complaint describing the defendants, and attaches the investigator’s log regarding

14

the relevant swarm as Exhibit B. Charging 4.4 hours of attorney time for this task is

15

unreasonable. Counsel seeks to recover fees for another 3 hours spent preparing an

16
17
18

amended complaint that was identical to the original except for the caption and the
correlation of the IP addresses with the subscribers’ names.

19
20

A form pleading and motions practice such as this simply does not take the type
of expertise or time that is normally associated with intellectual property matters. Nor

21
22

does it justify the number of cumulative hours that counsel seeks here. Having reviewed

23

the billing records and dockets in this and other similar matters, the Court finds that the

24

bulk of the “legal” work in these cases was performed and compensated years ago, that

25
26

these actions now involve far more word processing than drafting or legal analysis, and

27
28

6

This case was originally filed against eleven Doe defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 13

1

that the attorney time necessary to tailor documents to each case and/or individual is

2

minimal. The Court will award 1 hour, at an hourly rate of $350, to compensate UN4

3

for counsel’s time spent pursuing its claims against Omelco, and .8 hours, at an hourly

4
5

rate of $145.00, to compensate UN4 for legal assistant time altering pleadings, motions,

6

and service documents. The Court is satisfied that an attorneys’ fee of $466.00 is

7

reasonable and sufficient to cover the form-pleading work required by this case.

8

3.

9
10
11
12
13

UN4 requests $116.00 in costs from Omelco. Recovery of a pro rata portion of
the filing fee and the individual costs associated with the third-party subpoena and
service is appropriate.

14
15

Costs

IV.

CONCLUSION

The Court, having reviewed the motions for default judgment and the remainder

16
17

of the record, finds adequate bases for default judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby

18

finds and ORDERS:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1. UN4’s motions for default judgment are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
2. Defendants Omelco and Reynier are hereby permanently enjoined infringing
UN4’s exclusive rights in the motion picture film Boyka Undisputed 4,
including without limitation by using the Internet to reproduce or copy Boyka
Undisputed 4, to distribute Boyka Undisputed 4, or to make Boyka
Undisputed 4 available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to
lawful written license or with the express authority of UN4;
3. To the extent any unauthorized reproduction or copy of Boyka Undisputed 4
is in Defendants’ possession or subject to their control, they are directed to
destroy it;

28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 14

1

4. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for statutory damages in the
amount of $750;

2
3

5. Defendant Dimitria Omelco is individually liable for attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $466.00 and costs in the amount of $166.00.

4
5

6. No fees or costs are awarded against defendant Marlene Reynier.

6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor
of plaintiff and against defendants for the amounts specified in this Order.

10
11

Dated this 14th day of March, 2019.

12

A

13

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 15