Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1195
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1195
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et a]. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et aI.
`
`Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Sharon L. Williams (not present)
`
`Not Reported
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`
`N/A
`
`Tape No.
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [DE
`
`67]
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Clint Eastwood and Garrapata, LLC (“Garrapata”) (collectively,
`“Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) against Mediatonas UAB (“Defendant”)
`alleging (1) violation of common law right of publicity; (2) violation of California Civil Code § 3344;
`(3) false endorsement under the Lanham Act; (4) trademark infringement; (5) common law trademark
`mfringement; (6) defamation; and (7) false light invasion of privacy. Defendant has neither answered
`nor otherwise responded to the Complaint. On March 18, 2021, the Clerk entered default against
`Defendant.
`
`Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction
`(“Motion”). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion.
`
`H.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs allege the following:
`
`Clint Eastwood is a worldwide icon of the entertainment industry. flVIot. Default J., 126-7, ECF
`No. 67). Garrapata owns the rights of publicity in Mr. Eastwood’s name, image, likeness, and persona
`for all purposes other than the promotion of his movies. (Id. at 1:15-17). These rights include a federally
`registered trademark (U.8. Registration No. 3265483) in Mr. Eastwood’s name for “entertainment
`services, namely, personal appearances and live performance and live recorded performances by a
`movie star and actor.” (10'. at 1:18-22; Ex. 1, ECF No. 67-4). These rights also include a common law
`trademark in Mr. Eastwood’s name. (Mot. at 1:23-25).
`
`Defendant owns the websites ushealthynewscom and usmagazine-trending—news.com (Id. at
`4:19-21). These websites feature a false “news article” which contains pictures of Mr. Eastwood and
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1196
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1196
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et (:1.
`
`quotes him as saying that “he would be stepping away from the spotlight” to promote and sell a fictitious
`line of CBD products. (Id. at 326-8; Ex. 3, ECF No. 67—8). Further, Defendant sent emails linking to this
`article with the subject line, “Clint Eastwood Exposes Shocking Secret Today.” OVIot. at 2:7-8; Ex. 2,
`ECF No. 67-7). However, Mr. Eastwood did not endorse CBD products and he did not permit Defendant
`to appropriate his likeness for commercial use. Oiastwood Dec]. 1] 2, ECF No. 67:2; Bernstein Dec]. 11 3,
`ECF No. 67:3).
`
`Mr. Eastwood is a Los Angeles resident, and Garrapata is a California limited liability company.
`(Mot. at 7:6). Defendant is a Lithuanian private limited company. (Id. at 5:1-2).
`
`On February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs served Defendant the Complaint via email to
`gb@mediatones.com and message to Skype ID g.bucinskas. (Proof Serv. W 1-3, ECF No. 53). There is
`no indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. (Id) Defendant did not respond. On May 7, 2021,
`Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Default Judgment. (Default by Clerk, ECF No. 59).
`
`III.
`
`JUDICIAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(a) allows a court to enter a default judgment upon
`entry of default by the clerk and if a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend a case. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`55(a). An applicant may seek a clerk-ordered judgment only when the claim is for an amount that is
`certain or capable of being made certain by computation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(l). In all other cases, the
`applicant must apply for a court-order default judgment. Id. at 55(b)(2).
`
`Local Rule 55-1 requires the court-ordered default judgment application to include: (1) when and
`against what party the default was entered; (2) the identification of the pleadings to which the default
`was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that
`person is represented; (4) that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply; and (5) that notice
`has been served on the defaulting party, if required by Rule 55(b)(2). CD. Cal. L. R. 55—1.
`
`Furthermore, an entry of default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered
`judgment. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924—25 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, it is within the court’s
`discretion to grant or deny a default judgment. Eire] v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). In
`exercising its discretion, the court may consider the following factors (collectively, the “Eitel factors”):
`
`(1) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the complaint; (3) the sum of
`money at stake in the action; (4) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (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.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:1197
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:1197
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et a]. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et (11.
`
`Id. at 1471-72; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (CD. Cal. 2002).
`
`Lastly, for the purposes of default judgment, all well-pleaded factual allegations from the
`complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, are assumed to be true. Televideo 3123., Inc. v.
`Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).
`
`IV.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`As an initial matter, in considering a motion for default judgment, a court must first determine
`that it possesses “jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.” In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712
`(9th Cir. 1999). Plaintist claim for trademark infringement clearly falls under the Court’s federal
`subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims. As
`to personal jurisdiction, Defendant is allegedly a Lithuanian private limited company. However,
`deeming the facts in the Complaint true, the Court appears to have specific personal jluisdiction over
`Defendant.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Requirements
`
`As stated in the judicial standard above, Rule 55(a) requires that certain procedural requirements
`are met to enter default judgment. Here, Plaintiffs filed a FAC in federal court on February 12, 2021. On
`February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service for Defendant. Defendant failed to file an answer
`or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Defendant is an entity and not an infant or incompetent person.
`Defendant is not exempt under the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act. On March 18, 2021, the Clerk
`entered default against Defendant. On May 7, 2021, Defendant was properly serviced with notice of the
`Motion for Default Judgment.
`
`B.
`
`The Eitel Factors
`
`1.
`
`Prez'ndice to Plaintifls
`
`Here, Defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint. Accordingly,
`without a judgment, Plaintiffs will have no remedy for Defendant’s infringing activities. Plaintiffs will
`therefore be prejudiced if the Court does not grant default judgment. See PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at
`l 177.
`
`2.
`
`Merits and Suficieng 0t Plainfifls ’ Substantive Claims
`
`The second two Eitel factors require that Plaintiffs “state a claim on which” they may recover.
`Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978). In analyzing these two factors, well-pleaded
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:1198
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:1198
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et al.
`
`allegations regarding liability are accepted as true. See Fair Haas. ofMarin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906
`(9th Cir. 2002).
`
`Plaintiffs bring claims for (1) violation of common law right of publicity; (2) violation of
`California Civil Code § 3344; (3) false endorsement under the Lanham Act; (4) trademark infringement;
`(5) common law trademark infringement; (6) defamation; and (7) false light invasion of privacy.
`
`0.
`
`Common Law Right ofPublicity Claims
`
`To prevail on their California common law right of publicity claim, Plaintiffs must prove “(1) the
`defendant’s use of the plaintiff s identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiffs name or likeness to
`defendant’s advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury.” Laws v.
`Sony Illusic Entm 7, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Downing v. Abercrombie &
`Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2001).
`
`Here, taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendant used Mr. Eastwood’s name and likeness
`when Defendant included pictures of Mr. Eastwood, and fabricated quotes from Mr. Eastwood in an
`article that advertised CBD products. Plaintiffs did not consent to the use of Mr. Eastwood’s name or
`likeness to promote these products. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they incurred monetary damages
`equal to “the economic value of [Mr. Eastwood’s] name and likeness.” See Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292
`F.3d 1078, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, Plaintiffs sufficiently state a claim for the common law right of
`publicity.
`
`b. California Civil Code § 3344 Claims
`
`Under California Civil Code § 3344, “any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice,
`signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner
`for purposes of advertising
`without such
`person’s prior consent . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person.” Cal. Civ. Code §
`3344(a). Plaintiffs must “allege a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between
`the alleged use and the commercial purpose.” Id.
`
`Here, Defendant knowingly posted the article that featured fabricated quotes from Mr. Eastwood
`and photos of Mr. Eastwood. Additionally, the overall purpose of the article was to sell CBD products,
`as evidenced by the links on the webpage that allowed viewers to purchase the CBD products featured in
`the article. Therefore, deeming the fact alleged as true, Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated this claim.
`
`c. Lanham/1c! and Common Law Trademark Infringement Claims
`
`The requisite elements for false endorsement and trademark infringement claims under the
`Lanham Act are identical to those of common law trademark infringement claims. See Waits v. Frito-
`Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1107 (9th Cir. 1992). To prevail on these claims, Plaintiffs must show
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:1199
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:1199
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et al.
`
`ownership of a “valid, protectable trademark” and that Defendant’s “use of the mark is likely to cause
`confusion” among consumers as to the source of the services. Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511
`F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007).
`
`Here, Garrapata owns the rights of publicity in Mr. Eastwood’s name, image, likeness, and
`persona for all purposes other than the promotion of his movies. These rights also include a common law
`trademark in Mr. Eastwood’s name. Plaintiffs’ allege that Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs’ trademark in the
`form of pictures and quotes created “initial interest confusion” because it used Plaintiff’s trademark “in
`a manner calculated to capture attention.” See Brookfield Commc ’11, Inc. v. West Coast Entm ’t. Corp,
`174 F.3d 1036, 1062 (9th Cir. 1999). Based on these facts, Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act and common law
`trademark infringement claims have been adequately stated.
`
`(1. Defamation and False Light Invasion ofPrivacy Claims
`
`The elements of defamation and a false light are identical. Hawran v. Hixon, 209 Cal. App. 4th
`256, 277 (2012). To prevail, Plaintiffs must prove that there is “a publication that is false, defamatory,
`unprivileged, and that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.” Appel v. Wolf, 839
`F. App’x 78, 80 (9th Cir. 2020).
`
`Here, the article allegedly contained general false statements of fact, fabricated quotes attributed
`to Mr. Eastwood, and fabricated quotes attributed to other celebrities. Moreover, these statements
`negatively impacted Eastwood’s reputation. Mr. Eastwood neither provided these quotes nor consented
`to the dissemination of this allegedly false information. Finally, these statements exposed Eastwood to
`hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.
`
`Taking these facts as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs state a prima facie case for their claims.
`Accordingly, the first two Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment.
`
`3.
`
`The Sum of Money at Stake
`
`The Court next addresses the sum of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of Defendant’s
`conduct. PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. Some courts have noted that “this [factor] requires the court
`to assess whether the recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by defendant’s conduct.”
`Nutramax Labs, Inc. v. Body Wise Int ’I, Inc., No. l8-CV-2076 DOC, 2019 WL 3210095, at *4, (CD.
`Cal. Apr. 10, 2019). Further, courts disfavor default judgment “where the sum of money at stake is too
`large or unreasonable in relation to defendant’s conduct.” Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp, 992 F. Supp. 2d 998,
`1012 (CD. Cal. 2014).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs seek recovery of approximately $30 million in damages, including actual
`damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. In relation to Defendant’s conduct, this is an
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LflNUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:1200
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:1200
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et a].
`
`extremely large sum of money. As further discussed below, at issue is the lack of support Plaintiffs
`provide to justify this damage request. Plaintiffs provide only the amount Mr. Eastwood was paid for his
`appearance in a 2008 Super Bowl commercial. G3emstein Decl. 1] 5). Further, there is no evidence that
`Defendants profited from the article. Absent more information, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ damage
`request is unreasonable in relation to defendant’s conduct.
`
`4.
`
`Disgute of Material Factsl Excusable Neglect, and Decision on the Merits
`
`Here, it is unlikely that there will be a dispute of material facts because Defendant has not
`appeared in this action, despite having been properly served with the Complaint, the notice of default,
`and Plaintiffs’ Motion. Therefore, this factor supports default judgment. Moreover, although the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure favor decisions on the merits, this preference is not dispositive, and is nearly
`impossible without a response from the Defendant.
`
`After taking all Eitel factors into consideration, even if the scale tips slightly toward granting
`default judgment, as discussed below, the amount requested has not been adequately proven up.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Reguested Remedies
`
`1 .
`
`Permanent Inizmction
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) gives the Court the power to grant injunctions “according to the principles
`of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right of
`the registrant of a mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must
`demonstrate: (l) irreparable injury, (2) lack of other adequate remedies; (3) a balance of the hardships
`that tips in its favor and (4) no negative impact on the public interest due to the permanent injunction.
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 US. 388, 391 (2006). Plaintiffs have satisfied these
`requirements.
`
`First, Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs’ trademark created a likelihood of confusion. Because the
`article was presented as a piece of factual reporting in which Mr. Eastwood endorses CBD products,
`there remains significant potential for new and ongoing consumer confusion. Vision Sports, Inc. v.
`Melville Corp, 888 F.2d 609, 612 n.3 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a likelihood of confusion is
`ordinarily presumed to cause irreparable injury).
`
`Second, without a permanent injunction, Defendant would be able to continue hosting this
`allegedly false article. A permanent injunction is the only adequate remedy to rid the Internet of this
`article. See Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 1988).
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL 1\IINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:1201
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:1201
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et al.
`
`Third, deeming the allegations true, Mr. Eastwood does not want to be associated with CBD
`products and the article is damaging his reputation. Without a response from Defendant, there are not
`enough facts to determine the magnitude of the hardship that Defendant will suffer if this injunction is
`granted. Thus, the balance of hardships tips toward Plaintiffs.
`
`Finally, there is no indication that a permanent injunction would disserve the public’s interest. In
`fact, the public has an interest in not being confused or misled by fraudulent advertisements or celebrity
`endorsements. See Century 21 Real Estate Corp, 846 F.2d at 1181.
`
`2.
`
`Dama es
`
`Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for their claims of misappropriation, trademark infringement,
`and defamation and false light. Under Local Rule 55—2, “if the amount claimed in a judgment by default
`is unliquidated, the applicant may submit evidence of the amount of damages by declarations.” C .D. Cal.
`L. R. 55-2.
`
`0. Misappropriation claims
`
`Under California Civil Code § 3344, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for an amount greater than
`$750 or the actual damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a). The actual damages may be
`determined based on the market value of the famous person’s name, image, or identity. See Mid/er v.
`Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1988). The profits Defendant received for the
`“unauthorized use” may also be a measure for actual damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a).
`
`Here, as proof of Mr. Eastwood’s market value, Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration attesting
`to an amount Mr. Eastwood was paid to appear in one Super Bowl television commercial in 2008.
`(Bernstein Dec]. 1] 5). First, the Court finds this declaration alone, to be insufficient to establish the value
`of Mr. Eastwood’s appearance.1 Moreover, while this declaration may provide a point of reference for
`Mr. Eastwood’s appearance in a commercial endorsement, Plaintiffs fail to explain how the value of Mr.
`Eastwood’s appearance in a television commercial translates to the value of his endorsement of a
`product in a written advertisement. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “should not end up
`better off for having stolen Mr. Eastwood’s publicity rights.” (Mot. For Default 1., 20:1-3). While actual
`damages may be measured by the amount a defendant has profited, Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence as
`
`1 Plaintiffs cite to CFTC v. Emerald Worldwide Holdings, Inc., No. CV03-8339AHM, 2005 WL
`1130588, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2005), for the proposition that a declaration, alone, is sufficient.
`However, in addition to the fact that this is an unpublished, district court case, the court found the
`declaration to be sufficient because it “summarize[d] voluminous bank records” among other things.
`Here, that is not so.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:1202
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:1202
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et al.
`
`to any financial gain by Defendant. Without such information, Plamfifls’ argument is speculative and
`without merit. Thus, a request for $10 million dollars is unsupported by sufficient facts.
`
`Plaintiffs also request emotional distress damages. Such damages may be recovered for injury to
`peace, happiness, and feelings. See Waits, 978 F.2d at 1103. When assessing whether to grant emotional
`distress damages, the Court looks at “the nature of the infringement and its embarrassing impact on the
`plaintiff.” Id. While Mr. Eastwood alleges that he was “shocked and angry” when he first saw the
`fraudulent article, this does not rise to the high standard Califomia sets for emotional distress injuries.
`See Young v. Bank ofAmerica, 141 Cal. App. 3d 108, 114 (1983). (“In order to recover damages for
`emotional distress the injury suffered must be severe, i.e., substantial or enduring as distinguished from
`trivial or transitory.”). Outside of Mr. Eastwood’s initial reaction to the alleged misinformation, he has
`not provided any facts to support significant long-lasting effects on his mental state. Thus, a request for
`$1 million is an unreasonable damage award.
`
`Plaintiffs also request damages for injury to Mr. Eastwood’s reputation and goodwill. Per
`California Civil Code § 3333, “the measure of damages” for “the breach of an obligation,” such as
`injury to Plaintiff’s reputation and good will, “is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment
`proximately caused.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3333. Due to the allegedly false accusations included in the
`article, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Eastwood’s reputation as a civil servant and a reputable member of the
`film industry may have been negatively impacted. Plaintiffs, however, state only that Mr. Eastwood’s
`“representatives received inquiries from people” as to the validity of the article. (Eastwood Dec]. 1] 6).
`There are no facts to suggest that Mr. Eastwood suffered a loss of potential fihnmaking jobs or
`opportrmities as a result of the article. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent of the damage to his
`reputation and the request for $1 million is unreasonable.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs request punitive damages. Both California Civil Code § 3344 and common law
`right of publicity allow for an award of punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344. Punitive damages are
`available ‘Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of
`oppression, fi‘aud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). California courts define malice in part as
`“despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the
`rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). Further, California courts hold that “the key
`question
`is whether the amount of damages exceeds the level necessary to properly punish and
`deter.” Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 110 (1991). “Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition
`is a prerequisite to the award of punitive damages.” Barnes v. Logan, 122 F.3d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1997).
`Here, Plaintiffs point to the allegedly fabricated article as evidence of Defendant’s conscious disregard
`for Plaintiffs’ rights. These facts, alone, do not clearly rise to the level of “malice,” as defined by
`California law. Moreover, given the lack of information about the Defendant’s financial status, the Cornt
`cannot determine whether the amount requested is appropriate. Thus, even if punitive damages are
`warranted, Plaintiffs’ request for $10 million is unreasonable.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1203
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1203
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20—cv—06503—RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et at.
`
`b. Trademark Infringement claims
`
`Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff is entitled “to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) damages
`sustained by plaintiff, and (3) costs of the action.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Additionally, depending on the
`circumstances of the case, a court may treble actual damages. Id. However, as discussed above,
`Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence as to either Defendant’s profits, or Mr. Eastwood’s loss of
`goodwill and reputation.
`
`Since Plaintiffs have failed to adequately prove up monetary damages for the trademark
`infringement claims, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for $12 million in compensatory and
`enhanced damages is improper.
`
`c. Defamation and False Light claims
`
`Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages for their defamation and false light invasion of privacy
`claims. If Defendant breaches “an obligation not arising from contract,” then damages should
`“compensate for all the detriment proximately caused” by Defendant’s conduct. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.
`Mr. Eastwood states that he was “shocked and angry” upon reading the article, and that the “feelings
`grew” because of the fraudulent nature of the article. Eastwood Decl. 11 6). Additionally, Plaintiffs
`allege that Mr. Eastwood’s reputation was harmed because of the article. However, Plaintiffs have not
`offered any facts that sufficiently prove the amount of damages Mr. Eastwood suffered due to the harm.
`Furthermore, Plaintiffs have provided no facts to suggest that this article and/or the spam email reached
`a wide audience. Without such facts, there is simply no justification for the $2 million damage award
`Plaintiffs seek.
`
`If a plaintiff sufficiently states a claim for defamation, the plaintiff may also seek punitive
`damages. Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1379 (2010). Plaintiffs seek punitive damages, alleging
`that Defendant distributed the article with malice and conscious disregard of Mr. Eastwood’s rights. As
`stated above, the facts alleged do not clearly support a finding of malice, and Plaintiffs’ have not
`provided information regarding Defendant’s financial condition. Thus, the Court cannot justify a
`damage award of $6 million in this case.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL LIINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:1204
`Case 2:20-cv-06503-RGK-JDE Document 75 Filed 06/23/21 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:1204
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`2:20-cv-06503-RGK (JDEx)
`
`Date
`
`J1me 23, 2021
`
`Title
`
`Clint Eastwood, et al. v. Sera Labs, Inc. et aI.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`