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.

BWP Media USA, Inc. v. P3R, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 3, 2014

BWP MEDIA USA, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
P3R, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT P3R, LLC. [26] and JUDGMENT

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 24, 2013, plaintiff BWP Media USA, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint for copyright infringement against defendant P3R, LLC ("Defendant"). (Dkt. 1). On April 2, 2014, the Court clerk entered default against Defendant pursuant to Plaintiff's request. (Dkt. 24). On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendant. (Dkt. 26). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff licenses entertainment-related photojournalism goods and services, including photographs of celebrities, to online and print publications. (Compl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff's photographs are original, and Plaintiff has applied for and received valid copyright registrations with the United States Copyright Office ("USCO") for many of its photographs, including the photographs at issue. ( Id. ¶¶ 16, 19).

Defendant is the registered owner of a website located at www.myp3r.com ("the Website"). ( Id. ¶ 20). The Website contains "articles, photographs, and other information regarding celebrities." ( Id. ¶ 21). The Website contains paid advertisements and is believed to be profitable for Defendant. ( Id. ¶ 22).

Plaintiff has not consented to, authorized the use of, or licensed the alleged photographs to Defendant. ( Id. ¶ 31-32). However, Plaintiff believes that Defendant copied three photographs from the website of Plaintiff's client and displayed them on Defendant's Website in violation of Plaintiff's copyright. ( Id. ¶ 24).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard for Default Judgment

1. Procedural Standards

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a court may order default judgment following the entry of default by the court clerk. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). To comply with Local Rule 55-1, a default judgment application must establish: (1) when and against which party the default was entered; (2) the identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is adequately represented; (4) that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 does not apply; and (5) that notice of the application has been served on the defaulting party, if required. Id. ; see also Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F.Supp.2d 916, 919 n.19 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that service on defaulting party is required only if the party has appeared in the action).

2. Substantive Standards

Once these procedural requirements have been met, "[g]ranting or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter within the court's discretion." See Landstar, 725 F.Supp.2d at 919. But the Ninth Circuit has directed courts to consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the 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 ...


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.