Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:956
`
`
`
`
`
`Jordan Susman, Esq. (SBN 246116)
`jsusman@nolanheimann.com
`Margo Arnold, Esq. (SBN 278288)
`marnold@nolanheimann.com
`NOLAN HEIMANN LLP
`16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 820
`Encino, California 91436
`Telephone: (818) 574-5710
`Facsimile: (818) 574-5689
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clint Eastwood
`and Garrapata, LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`CLINT EASTWOOD, an individual;
`GARRAPATA, LLC, a California limited
`liability company,
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`Date: June 7, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Place: Roybal Federal Building
` and U.S. Courthouse
` 255 East Temple Street
` Courtroom 850, 8th Floor
` Los Angeles, California 90012
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`MEDIATONAS UAB, a Lithuanian
`private limited company DOES 2-30,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:957
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND……………………………………………….1
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Rights of Publicity and Trademark…………………………1
`
`B. Defendants’ Illegal Activities……………………………………………….2
`
`C. Mediatonas Is Responsible For The Fraudulent “Article”…………4
`
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY………………………………………………………….5
`
`III. ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………….5
`
`A.
`
`Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………5
`
`B. Default Judgment is Warranted Against Mediatonas……………….7
`
`C. Eitel Factors……………………………………………………………………...8
`
`1.
`
`All Claims in the FAC Have Substantive Merit and are
`Sufficiently Alleged (Eitel Factors 1 and 2)……………………8
`
`a. Mediatonas is Liable for Violation of Common Law
`Right of Publicity……………………………………………….9
`
`b. Mediatonas is Liable for Violation of California Civil
`Code Section 3344….…………………………………………10
`
`c. Mediatonas is Liable for False Endorsement Under the
`Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(A)), Trademark
`Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(A), and Common
`Law Trademark Infringement…………………………….10
`
`d. Mediatonas is Liable for Defamation and False Light
`Invasion of Privacy…………………………………………...12
`
`2.
`
`The Remaining Eitel factors Support Entry of Default
`Judgment (Eitel Factors 3 and 7)….……………………………...15
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:958
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`There is Minimal Possibility of Dispute Concerning
`Material Facts………………………………………………….15
`
`
`There is No Evidence that Default Was Due to
`Excusable Neglect……………………………………………..15
`
`Plaintiffs Will Suffer Prejudice if Default Judgment is
`Not Entered……………………………………………………..16
`
`Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits Does Not
`Warrant Denying Default Judgment……………………..17
`
`e.
`
`Sum of Money at Stake………………………………………17
`
`D. Remedies and Damages……………………………………………………...17
`
`1.
`
`Permanent Injunction………………………………………………..17
`
`2. Monetary Damages…………………………………………………...19
`
`a. Misappropriation Claims…………………………………...19
`
`i.
`
`Market Value…………………………………………..19
`
`Injury to Peace, Happiness and Feelings……….20
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`Injury to Reputation and Goodwill……………..22
`
`Punitive Damages………………………………………2
`
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs…………………………..23
`
`Trademark Claims……………………………………………25
`
`b.
`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Actual Damages……………………………………….25
`
`Enhanced Damages…………………………………...25
`
`Attorneys’ Fees………………………………………...26
`
`c.
`
`Defamation and False Light………………………………..27
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:959
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`Actual Damages……………………………………….27
`
`
`Punitive Damages……………………………………..27
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:960
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES:
`A.C.T. 898 Prod., Inc. v. Door to Door Nail Supply,
`No. CV1504520SJOMRWX, 2015 WL 12791424
`(C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015)………………………………….………………....10
`
`Adams v. Murakami,
`54 Cal. 3d 105 (1991)…..……………………………………………………..23
`
`
`Aldabe v. Aldabe,
`616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980)...………………………………………………8
`
`
`ALPO Petfoods v. Ralston Purina Co.,
`778 F. Supp. 555 (D.D.C. 1991)……………………………………………..25
`
`
`Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK,
`480 U.S. 531 (1987)…………..………………………………………………17
`
`Bedavailability.Com v. A Bed Available, LLC,
`No. 06CV2401LABLSP, 2007 WL 627964 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007)………..7
`
`
`Bernardi v. County of Monterey,
`167 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (2008)………………………………………………..24
`
`Black v. Lane,
`22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994)…...………………………………………………9
`
`Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp.,
`174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)…………...……………………………………11
`
`Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach,
`203 Cal. App. 4th 852 (2012)…………………………………………………24
`
`Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin,
`846 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1988)…………………………………………...……11
`
`Clearline Techs. Ltd. v. Cooper B-Line, Inc.,
`948 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 2013)………………………………………..25
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:961
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. GameMasters,
`
`87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999)…………………………………………18
`
`
`
`
`Cyma (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Lumondi, Inc.,
`2011 WL 1483394 (N.D. Cal. 2011)……………………………………….....24
`
`
`Danning v. Lavine,
`572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978)……………………………………………….....8
`
`
`Discovery Communications, Inc. v. Animal Planet, Inc.,
`172 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (C.D. Cal. 2001)…………………………………….....26
`
`
`Doe v. Unocal Corp.,
`248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001)…...………………………………………………6
`
`
`Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch,
`265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) …………………………………………………10
`
`
`Einstein v. Baby Einstein Co. LLC,
`No. CV0702171MMMSSX, 2009 WL 10670676
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) …………………………………………………….10
`
`
`Eitel v. McCool,
`782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) ………………………………………………...8
`
`
`Emerald Worldwide Holdings, Inc.,
`No. CV03-8339AHM, 2005 WL 1130588 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2005)……….19
`
`
`Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Aranda,
`384 F. App’x 688 (9th Cir. 2010) ……………………………………………19
`
`
`Grant v Esquire,
`367 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) …………………………………………...21
`
`
`Halsey v. Colonial Asset Mgmt.,
`No. 5:13-cv-02025, 2014 WL 12601015 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2014) …………16
`
`
`Hawran v. Hixson,
`209 Cal. App. 4th 256 (2012) ………………………………………………...12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:962
`
`
`
`
`Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
`
`90 Wis. 2d 379 (1979)) …………………………………………………..20, 22
`
`
`
`
`In re Tuli,
`172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) …………………………………………………..7
`
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) …………………………………………………………...6
`
`Kapellas v. Kofman,
`1 Cal. 3d 20, (1969) …………………………………………………………..12
`
`
`Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 47 (2006) ……………………………………………….....24
`
`
`L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,
`988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ………………………………………………16
`
`Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc.,
`448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006) …………………………………………………9
`
`Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.,
`611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010) …………………………………………………26
`
`
`Luxul Tech. Inc. v. Nectarlux, LLC,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ………………………………………...7
`
`Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc.,
`143 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (2006) ……………………………………………….24
`
`Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,
`849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) …………………………………………………19
`
`
`Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co.,
`497 U.S. 1 (1990) …………………………………………………………….16
`
`PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans,
`238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ………………………………………17
`
`PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc.,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:963
`
`
`
`
`189 F.R.D. 431 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ……………………………………………...8
`
`
`Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Baccarat Clothing Co.,
`692 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982) ………………………………………………..25
`
`PLCM Grp. v. Drexler,
`22 Cal. 4th 1084 (2000) ……………………………………………………...24
`
`Philip Morris, USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods, Inc.,
`219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ……………………………………………...8
`
`
`Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Shalabi,
`352 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ………………………………………18
`
`
`Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea,
`175 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2009) ……………………………………………….24
`
`
`Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica,
`301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) ……………………………………………………..9
`
`
`Raven's Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co.,
`114 Cal. App. 3d 783 (1981) …………………………………………………27
`
`
`Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc.,
`683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) ………………………………………………..11
`
`
`Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
`374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) …………………………………………………..6
`
`
`Sher v. Johnson,
`911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) …………………………………………………6
`
`
`Sky Billiards, Inc. v. Loong Star, Inc.,
`No. EDCV 14-921 JGB, 2016 WL 6661175
`(C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016) ……………………………………………..8, 15, 16
`
`
`Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi,
`673 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) ………………………………………………..25
`
`Soilworks, LLC v. Midwest Indus. Supply, Inc.,
`575 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2008) ………………………………………..12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:964
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,
`
`292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) …………………………………………………9
`
`
`
`
`Taco Cabana Int'l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc.,
`932 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1991) ………………………………………………..25
`
`Taus v. Loftus,
`40 Cal. 4th 683 (2007) ……………………………………………………….12
`
`TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal,
`826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) …………………………………………………15
`
`
`Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 998 (C.D. Cal. 2014).………………………………………..16
`
`Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc.,
`978 F.2 1093 (9th Cir. 1992) ……………………………………..19, 21, 22, 23
`
`Weil Ceramics & Glass, Inc. v. Dash,
`878 F.2d 659 (3d Cir. 1989) ………………………………………………….16
`
`Wong v. Jing,
`189 Cal. App. 4th 1354 (2010) ……………………………………………….27
`
`Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme,
`433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)….………………………………………………7
`
`Zynga Game Network Inc. v. Williams,
`2011 WL 2560240 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2011) ……………………………….26
`
`21
`
`
`
`STATUTES:
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a) ……………………………………………………………23
`Cal. Civ. Code § 45………………………………………………………………….12
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10………………………………………………………...6
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) ………………………………………………………………..8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) ………………………………………………………………8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) …………………………………………………………………8
`L.R. 55-1………………………………………………………………………………8
`21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq……………………………………………………………….21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 10 of 38 Page ID
`#:965
`
`
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)…26
`7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq…………………………………………………………………21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 11 of 38 Page ID
`#:966
`
`
`
`1
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), Plaintiffs Clint Eastwood and Garrapata,
`
`2
`
`LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully request that the Court enter final
`
`3
`
`judgment by default against Mediatonas UAB (“Mediatonas”).
`
`4
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A. Plaintiffs’ Rights of Publicity and Trademark
`
`Clint Eastwood is recognized around the world as an icon of the entertainment
`
`7
`
`industry. (FAC ¶ 14). After rising to fame in the 1950s as the star of the TV series
`
`8
`
`Rawhide, Mr. Eastwood became one of the world’s biggest movie stars with his
`
`9
`
`roles as the “Man With No Name” in a series of Westerns in the late 1960s and the
`
`10
`
`Dirty Harry films of the 1970s and 80s. (Id.). In 1971, Mr. Eastwood directed his
`
`11
`
`first of more than 30 motion pictures, including the Academy Award winning Best
`
`12
`
`Pictures Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004). (Id.). In addition to his
`
`13
`
`successful career in the entertainment industry, Mr. Eastwood served as the mayor of
`
`14
`
`Carmel-by-the-Sea in the late-1980s. (Id.).
`
`15
`
`Garrapata is the owner of the rights of publicity in Mr. Eastwood’s name,
`
`16
`
`image, likeness, and persona for all purposes, other than those related to the
`
`17
`
`promotion and exploitation of the motion pictures Mr. Eastwood makes. (FAC ¶ 8;
`
`18
`
`Eastwood Decl. ¶ 2; Bernstein Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3). Among other things, Garrapata owns a
`
`19
`
`federally registered trademark U.S. Registration No. 3265483 in Mr. Eastwood’s
`
`20
`
`name for “Entertainment services, namely, personal appearances and live
`
`21
`
`performance and live recorded performances by a movie star and actor” (the
`
`22
`
`“Registered Mark”). (FAC ¶ 50; Bernstein Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1).
`
`23
`
`Additionally, by virtue of Mr. Eastwood’s longstanding and continuous use of
`
`24
`
`the Registered Mark in commerce, Garrapata has acquired a valid common law
`
`25
`
`trademark in Mr. Eastwood’s name. (FAC ¶ 51). The public has come to recognize
`
`26
`
`the Registered Mark as exclusively identifying Mr. Eastwood, and the mark is
`
`27
`
`famous worldwide. (FAC ¶ 14). Garrapata has selectively used the trademark
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 12 of 38 Page ID
`#:967
`
`
`
`
`CLINT EASTWOOD in commerce in connection with Mr. Eastwood’s products and
`
`services. (FAC ¶ 49; Eastwood Decl. ¶ 2; Bernstein Decl. ¶ 3).
`
`B. Defendants’ Illegal Activities
`
`Among the top results of an online search for “Clint Eastwood CBD” is a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`website for go.ushealthynews.com, with the headline “Big Pharma in Outrage over
`
`6
`
`Clint Eastwood’s CBD.” (FAC ¶ 17; Susman Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1).
`
`7
`
`In addition, Defendants send emails with the subject line, “Clint Eastwood
`
`8
`
`Exposes Shocking Secret Today.” (FAC ¶ 18; Susman Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2). In the
`
`9
`
`body of the email is an apparent article from NBC’s Today show with a picture of
`
`10
`
`Mr. Eastwood under the headline “Breaking News: Clint Eastwood Exposes
`
`11
`
`Shocking Secret Today.” (Id.).
`
`12
`
`When one clicks on the link for go.ushealthynews.com in the online search
`
`13
`
`results or the purported Today show report in the spam email, it takes the consumer
`
`14
`
`to a website featuring a fraudulent “news article” purportedly written by a journalist
`
`15
`
`named Alice Palmer that is automatically programmed to appear as if the article was
`
`16
`
`published on the date that a user views the website. The content of the article
`
`17
`
`generally remains the same, even when the header of the website varies. For
`
`18
`
`example, the website URL is sometimes allocated to www.go.ushealthynews.com,
`
`19
`
`but the header of the website sometimes makes it appear as if it was published by
`
`20
`
`“Entertainment Today.” Other times, the website URL is allocated to usmagazine-
`
`21
`
`trending-news.com to make it appear that the article is associated with US Weekly
`
`22
`
`magazine. (FAC ¶ 19; Susman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, Exhs. 3-9).
`
`23
`
`The CBD products advertised and sold on the fraudulent “article” include Sera
`
`24
`
`Relief (Susman Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 3), Euphoric CBD (Susman Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. 4, 5, 6),
`
`25
`
`and Patriot Supreme (Susman Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 7). (FAC ¶ 20).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Other than the names of the products being advertised and sold, the verbiage
`
`of the fraudulent “article” does not change substantially, stating among other things:
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 13 of 38 Page ID
`#:968
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In an emotional 1-on-1 interview, one of America's most
`respected icons revealed that he wouldn't be where he is without
`
`CBD. We all know and love Clint Eastwood as the charismatic
`actor and director who has never been shy about advocating for
`marijuana use. He has always been focused on making movies,
`going on tour, and promoting America. However, he shocked
`everyone when he announced his new CBD line, [CBD product],
`would be the next step in his career.
`In recent developments, Eastwood revealed that he would be
`stepping away from the spotlight to put more time into his
`wellness business, now that it has grown so fast:
`“This was a really, really difficult decision for me. When I started
`this whole thing back in 2015, it really was just a part time
`passion project and a way for me to give back. Now here we are
`almost 5 years later and [CBD product] has steadily grown into
`a full-fledged business that’s helped thousands of people become
`pain free and much happier. My line gives me a chance to do
`something bigger than movies and I knew I would regret it for
`the rest of my life if I let that opportunity pass me by.”
`Eastwood went on to say that he never really expected things to
`get this big and that several studios and sponsors were furious
`that he was splitting up his time. In fact, relations with some
`studios grew so tense that they ended up giving him an ultimatum
`- acting or his wellness line. . . .
`The product Eastwood is referring to is his breakthrough CBD
`wellness line [CBD product]. The star has spent the past four
`years developing a line of highly effective and highly potent
`wellness products that he claims are the solution for those who
`don’t want to resort to using opiates.
`His product [CBD product] sold out within ten minutes when
`first launched and it seems the world can’t get enough of the
`benefits and results.
`Eastwood even admitted that big pharma companies are furious
`with him after noticing a large decline in sales since [CBD
`product] was launched on the market.
`“Users of [CBD product] are experiencing results that before
`now were only possible through prescription medication. It’s
`obviously a much cheaper, and safer alternative and because of
`that pharmaceutical companies are finding it harder to keep
`patients using their prescriptions.”
`Having a crowd of angry pharmaceutical companies is a unique
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 14 of 38 Page ID
`#:969
`
`
`
`
`and effective endorsement for [CBD product], but Eastwood has
`still been proactive in getting [CBD product] into the hands of
`
`those who need it. . . .
`While making an appearance on ‘TV Show’ he gifted the cast
`and crew with [CBD product] products and made sure every
`guest was given a sample of the life changing supplement. Since
`then, he has cultivated a huge celebrity clientele who are
`regularly reordering the products. See for yourself!
`(FAC ¶ 21; Susman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5 Exhs. 3-9).
`
`The fraudulent “article” further states: “Eastwood’s new line has been a huge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`hit amongst fellow celebs who got to try the initial launch of [CBD product]”
`
`9
`
`followed by a series of false testimonials from Terry Bradshaw, Sam Elliott, Michael
`
`10
`
`J. Fox, and Garth Brooks about Mr. Eastwood’s purported CBD product. (FAC ¶ 22;
`
`11
`
`Susman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5 Exhs. 3-9). The fraudulent “article” concludes with a false
`
`12
`
`claim that “Eastwood is offering our lucky readers the chance to try [CBD product]!”
`
`13
`
`and urging people to purchase the product. (Id.). Links on the webpage allow the
`
`14
`
`viewer to purchase the CBD products being touted by Mr. Eastwood. (FAC ¶ 23;
`
`15
`
`Susman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5 Exhs. 3-9).
`
`16
`
`17
`
`C. Mediatonas Is Responsible For The Fraudulent “Article”
`
`Mediatonas is responsible for publishing the fraudulent “article.” Among other
`
`18
`
`things:
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Mediatonas owns the websites ushealthynews.com and usmagazine-trending-
`
`news.com, where the fraudulent “article” appears (FAC ¶ 24; Susman Decl. ¶ 6
`
`Exh. 10);
`
`• Mediatonas created the fraudulent “article” to promote and sell CBD products
`
`(FAC ¶ 24; Susman Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6, Exhs. 4-10);
`
`• To avoid suspicion, Mediatonas created and sent to Sera Labs’ marketing
`
`company, Express Revenue, a fake website advertising Sera Labs’ products
`
`that did not mention Mr. Eastwood. (FAC ¶ 24; Kaufman Decl. ¶¶ 1-5).
`
`Mediatonas’ website deliberately misleads visitors into believing it is an
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 15 of 38 Page ID
`#:970
`
`
`
`
`American company. Among other things, it refers to itself as “Mediatonas LLC”
`
`when it is not a limited liability company, but a Lithuanian private limited company
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`(UAB). (Susman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7 Exh. 10, 11). In addition Mediatonas’ website
`
`4
`
`prominently displays a phone number with a Virginia area code. (Susman Decl. ¶ 7
`
`5
`
`Exh. 11). However, when one calls the number, it either rings without answer or rings
`
`6
`
`and then gives a busy signal. (Susman Decl. ¶ 7).
`
`7
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`8
`
`Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action on July 22, 2020. In the
`
`9
`
`original complaint, Plaintiffs named as defendants the companies whose products
`
`10
`
`were being advertised in the fraudulent “article.” (Complaint ¶¶ 9-11) (Dkt. 2).
`
`11
`
`On July 28, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO
`
`12
`
`and a request to conduct expedited discovery to identify the Doe defendants. (Dkt.
`
`13
`
`15). Through such discovery, Plaintiffs obtained information regarding Mediatonas’
`
`14
`
`liability, and the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file the FAC. (Dkt. 38, 50).
`
`15
`
`On February 19, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to
`
`16
`
`serve the FAC and summons on Mediatonas via email and Skype. (Dkt. 52).
`
`17
`
`On February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs served the summons and FAC on Mediatonas
`
`18
`
`via email and Skype. (Dkt. 53).
`
`19
`
`Upon request of Plaintiffs, the clerk entered Mediatonas’ default on March 18,
`
`20
`
`2021. (Dkt. 59).
`
`21
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`22
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`The Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`24
`
`1338(a), as this is a civil action arising under federal law, the Lanham Act of 1946 as
`
`25
`
`amended (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq.). The pendent state law claims are so
`
`26
`
`related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy
`
`27
`
`pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court therefore has
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 16 of 38 Page ID
`#:971
`
`
`
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`The Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Mediatonas because
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Mediatonas purposefully directed its activities and consummated transactions in
`
`4
`
`California in carrying out its illegal scheme and because its scheme is inflicting harm
`
`5
`
`on businesses and consumers in California. FAC ¶¶ 7, 8.
`
`6
`
`California’s long-arm statute is coextensive with the reach of federal due
`
`7
`
`process. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10. Therefore, to exercise personal jurisdiction
`
`8
`
`over a nonresident, defendant need only have “certain minimum contacts” with the
`
`9
`
`relevant forum “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
`
`10
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
`
`11
`
`310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). This means “defendant’s conduct
`
`12
`
`and connection with the forum State must be such that the defendant should
`
`13
`
`reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357,
`
`14
`
`1361 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`15
`
`This Court has specific jurisdiction over Mediatonas because its “contacts with
`
`16
`
`the forum give rise to the cause of action before the court.” Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248
`
`17
`
`F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit evaluates specific jurisdiction using
`
`18
`
`a three-part test: (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct its activities
`
`19
`
`or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some
`
`20
`
`act by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in
`
`21
`
`the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim
`
`22
`
`must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities;
`
`23
`
`and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial
`
`24
`
`justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
`
`25
`
`F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). Under this test, the purposeful availment prong,
`
`26
`
`requires a showing that “defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional
`
`27
`
`act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 17 of 38 Page ID
`#:972
`
`
`
`
`is likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le
`
`Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Calder
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)). “If a jurisdictionally sufficient amount of harm is
`
`4
`
`suffered in the forum state, it does not matter that even more harm might have been
`
`5
`
`suffered in another state.” Id. at 1207.
`
`6
`
`Mr. Eastwood is a well known California resident, and it was reasonably
`
`7
`
`foreseeable that the effect of Mediatonas’ unlawful activities would be felt here by
`
`8
`
`Mr. Eastwood. See Bedavailability.Com v. A Bed Available, LLC, No.
`
`9
`
`06CV2401LABLSP, 2007 WL 627964, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007) (“The Ninth
`
`10
`
`Circuit has spoken clearly to this issue, holding that, even where a defendant never
`
`11
`
`enters the plaintiff's home state but merely posts material accessible on the internet
`
`12
`
`giving rise to a Lanham Act claim, a district court in the plaintiff's home state has
`
`13
`
`personal jurisdiction over the defendant because infringement would create an injury
`
`14
`
`which would be felt mainly in that state.”).
`
`15
`
`Mediatonas’ acts have caused harm to Plaintiffs, Mr. Eastwood’s fan base, and
`
`16
`
`the public in California. See, e.g., Luxul Tech. Inc. v. Nectarlux, LLC, 78 F. Supp. 3d
`
`17
`
`1156, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (willful copyright infringement on website combined
`
`18
`
`with false representations to consumer in California support specific jurisdiction over
`
`19
`
`out-of-state defendants).
`
`20
`
`Because Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Mediatonas’ activities in California
`
`21
`
`and/or were directed to California, there is nothing unreasonable about exercising
`
`22
`
`jurisdiction here.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`B. Default Judgment is Warranted Against Mediatonas
`
`Following an entry of default, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) permits the Court to enter
`
`25
`
`default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. In considering a motion for default
`
`26
`
`judgment, a court must first determine that it possesses “jurisdiction over both the
`
`27
`
`subject matter and the parties.” In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). The
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 67-1 Filed 05/07/21 Page 18 of 38 Page ID
`#:973
`
`
`
`
`decision to enter default judgment is then left to the sound discretion of the court. See
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 1980).
`
`When deciding whether to grant default judgment, the Ninth Circuit considers
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`the following factors: (1) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (2) the
`
`5
`
`sufficiency of the complaint; (3) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
`
`6
`
`(4) whether default was due to excusable neglect; (5) the possibility of prejudice to
`
`7
`
`the plaintiff if the motion is denied; (6) the strong policy underlying the Federal
`
`8
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits; and (7) the sum of money
`
`9
`
`at stake in the action (collectively, the “Eitel factors”). Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
`
`10
`
`1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). “In applying this discretionary standard, default
`
`11
`
`judgments are more often granted than denied.” PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189
`
`12
`
`F.R.D. 431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999). As detailed below, each Eitel factor weighs in
`
`13
`
`favor of granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against Mediatonas.
`
`14
`
`Further, the Plaintiffs have met the procedural requirements required by Fed. R. Civ.
`
`15
`
`P. 55(b) and the Local Rules of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); L.R. 55-1;
`
`16
`
`Susman Decl. ¶¶ 8-11 (setting forth information required by L.R. 55-1).
`
`C. Eitel Factors
`1. All Claims in the FAC Have Substantive Merit and are
`Sufficiently Alleged (Eitel Factors 1 and 2)
`
`The first two Eitel factors assess the substantive merit of the movant’s claims
`
`and the sufficiency of its pleadings. These factors require that a plaintiff “state a
`
`claim upon which it may recover.” Philip Morris, USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods, Inc.,
`
`219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003); see also Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386,
`
`1388 (9th Cir. 1978). In considering a motion for default judgment, “‘well-pleaded
`
`factual allegations’ are accepted as true, except for allegations relating to damages.”
`
`Sky Billiards, Inc. v. Loong Star, In