Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dc Comics, and Sanrio, Inc v. Vuong Tran A.K.A. Vuong Nguyen A.K.A. Ricky Tran A.K.A.

May 1, 2013

DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., DC COMICS, AND SANRIO, INC., PLAINTIFFS
v.
VUONG TRAN A.K.A. VUONG NGUYEN A.K.A. RICKY TRAN A.K.A. RICKY VUONG, AN INDIVIDUAL AND D/B/A WWW.NORCALJUMPER.COM, JOEY NGUYEN A.K.A. DUONG NGUYEN, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., 22

DC Comics, and Sanrio, Inc.'s (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion 23 for entry of default judgment against Defendant Joey Nguyen a.k.a. 24

Dung Nguyen a.k.a. Duong Nguyen ("Nguyen" or "Defendant"). ECF No. 25 ("Mot."). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.

II.BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are companies that own the rights to a wide variety 3 of well-known copyrighted and trademarked designs.*fn1 Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. 4

Defendant owns a business that manufactures, imports, distributes, 5 rents, and sells goods -- mainly inflatable play areas ("jumpers") 6 for children's parties and jumper accessories -- featuring an array 7 of Plaintiffs' copyrighted and trademarked designs.*fn2 Compl. ¶ 1. 8

The designs that Plaintiffs allege to have been infringed are: 9

Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse; Donald Duck; Daisy Duck; Pluto; Chip 10 'N' Dale; Tinker Bell; various characters from the motion pictures United States District Court For the Northern District of California Toy Story 3, Pirates of the Caribbean, High School Musical, The 12 Little Mermaid, and Hannah Montana; Batman; Superman; Wonder Woman; 13 Hello Kitty; KeroKeroKeropi; My Melody; and Badtz Maru 14 (collectively the "Designs"). Mot. at 18. All of the Designs are 15 registered under federal copyright and trademark law. See id. 16

Plaintiffs are the exclusive licensors of the Designs, and 17 they have not granted Defendant any license or authorization to 18 make any sort of use of the Designs. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15. However, 19 according to Plaintiffs' allegations, Defendant has (among other 20 things) reproduced, sold, rented, and otherwise exploited the 21

Designs in order to promote their own business. Plaintiffs 22 therefore sued Defendant in this Court on September 27, 2012, 23 asserting claims for copyright infringement, trademark 24 infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and 2 declaratory relief. See Compl. ¶¶ 13-47. Defendant did not answer 3 the complaint or otherwise appear in this action. Plaintiffs now 4 ask the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant solely as 5 to the copyright infringement claims, to award both statutory 6 damages under the Copyright Act and post-judgment interest, and to 7 enter an injunction preventing Defendant from further infringing 8 any of Plaintiffs' copyrights. 9 10

III.LEGAL STANDARD

United States District Court For the Northern District of California After entry of default, the Court may enter a default 12 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Its decision whether to do 13 so, while "discretionary," Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 14 (9th Cir. 1980), is guided by several factors. As a preliminary 15 matter, the Court must "assess the adequacy of the service of 16 process on the party against whom default judgment is requested." 17

Bd. of Trs. of N. Cal. Sheet Metal Workers v. Peters, No. C-00-0395 18 VRW, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2001). 19

If the Court determines that service was sufficient, it should 20 consider whether the following factors support the entry of default 21 judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) 22 the merits of a plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency 23 of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) 24 the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether 25 the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy 26 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions 27 on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 28 1986).

"The general rule of law is that upon default the factual 2 allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount 3 of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 4 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). However, "necessary facts not 5 contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally 6 insufficient, are not established by default." Cripps v. Life Ins. 7 Co., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 9

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.