Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2474
`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Pageiof1i2 Page ID #:2474
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK
`
`Date April 20, 2022
`
`Title ParamountPictures Corporation etal. v. Does
`
`Present: The Honorable Mark C.Scarsi, United States District Judge
`
`Stephen Montes Kerr
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Reported
`Court Reporter
`
`Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
`
`Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
`
`NonePresent
`
`NonePresent
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT
`JUDGMENT (ECFNo.36)
`
`Plaintiffs Paramount Pictures Corporation, Universal City Studios
`Productions LLLP, Universal Content Productions LLC, Universal Television LLC,
`Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries,
`Inc., Disney
`Enterprises, Inc., Netflix Studios, LLC, Netflix US, LLC, and Netflix Worldwide
`Entertainment, LLC moveto enter defaultjudgmentagainst the Doe Defendants who
`run the PrimeWire website. Mot., ECF No. 36. Even though Defendants have been
`served, ECF No. 24, Defendants have not yet appeared. The Court deems the motion
`appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal.
`R. 7-15.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs are companies that produce and distribute movies and television
`programs. See Miller Decl. §/ 4, ECF No. 17. They own several copyrighted works
`and publicly perform these works, including by streaming performancesover the
`internet. Klaus Decl. §§ 2-139, ECF No. 18; Miller Decl. § 4. Defendants are
`anonymousentities that own and operate the website PrimeWire. Van Voorn Decl.
`| 7, ECF No. 16. PrimeWire allows users of the website to access streams of movies
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2475
`
`and television shows through embedded streaming or through third-party sites to
`which PrimeWire provides links. Id. ¶ 8. Links are added to PrimeWire in two
`different ways. First, Defendants, the PrimeWire operators, themselves add links to
`the PrimeWire database. Id. ¶ 23. Second, Defendants also ask users to submit links
`to a PrimeWire forum. Id. ¶ 24. These links are later approved by a PrimeWire
`moderator. Id. ¶ 26. Defendants make money from this third-party streaming by
`hosting advertisements on the PrimeWire website. Id. ¶ 31.
`
`Plaintiffs negotiate with distributors and licensees over the prices and
`
`circumstances of reproduction and performance of the copyrighted works. Miller
`Decl. ¶ 19. A large part of this strategy is windowing, or making the work available
`exclusively available through certain channels over a specific time period. Id. ¶ 20.
`Plaintiffs allege unauthorized streaming undermines their contractual commitments
`by weakening Plaintiffs’ future negotiating position and making it more difficult for
`counterparties to achieve a profit. Id. ¶¶ 24–25.
`
`Plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin Defendants from performing Plaintiffs’ works, to
`
`enjoin Defendants from hosting the works on the PrimeWire website, for damages,
`and for other associated relief. Compl., ECF No. 1. The Court previously entered a
`preliminary injunction against Defendants. Order, ECF No. 30.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits the Court to enter default
`
`judgment. The Court need not make detailed findings of fact in the event of default.
`Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990). On entry of
`default, well-pleaded allegations in the complaint concerning liability are taken as
`true. Damages, however, must be proven. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1080
`(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)).
`
`Courts consider several factors in determining whether to enter default
`
`judgment: “(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.” Eitel v. McCool,
`782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2476
`
`A.
`
`Partial Default Judgment
`
`B.
`
`Jurisdiction and Service of Process
`
`Local Rule 55-1 requires the party seeking default judgment to submit a
`
`declaration establishing (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
`represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other representative;
`(4) that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply; and (5) that the
`defaulting party was properly served with notice. C.D. Cal. R. 55-1.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs only seek default judgment as to liability and a permanent
`
`injunction. They request deferral of the issues of damages and costs until they
`conduct discovery. Mot. 2–3. The Ninth Circuit has implicitly endorsed the practice
`of entering partial default judgment. See Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779,
`785–86, 790 (9th Cir. 2011) (reviewing with approval district court’s entry of default
`judgment as to liability before awarding damages).
`
`
`
`
`The Court must first address whether it may exercise subject-matter
`jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Defendants and whether Plaintiffs
`properly served Defendants. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999).
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ copyright
`The Court has subject-matter
`
`infringement claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Plaintiffs have properly served
`Defendants. ECF No. 22.
`
`Plaintiffs assert the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Rule 4(k)(2) permits a court to exercise
`personal jurisdiction where “a claim . . . arises under federal law” if “the defendant
`is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction” and if
`“exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.”
`A copyright infringement action arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
`Whenever a plaintiff contends that no state court can exercise general jurisdiction
`over a defendant, the defendant must contest that assertion. Holland Am. Line Inc. v.
`Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 461–62 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants have not
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2477
`
`appeared to argue they are subject to jurisdiction in any state court, so Plaintiffs have
`met this element.
`
`Finally, exercising personal jurisdiction comports with United States law and
`
`due process if a defendant purposefully directs its activities toward the forum, if the
`claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities, and if the
`exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d
`1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2020). A defendant purposefully aims an act at a forum if it
`commits an intentional act expressly aimed at a forum that causes a harm the
`defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum. Marvix Photo, Inc. v. Brand
`Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Defendants committed an
`intentional act of operating a website to stream Plaintiffs’ copyrightable works.
`Compl. ¶¶ 2, 36–44; see Wanat, 970 F.3d at 1209. Defendants also expressly aimed
`their acts at the United States. Over half of PrimeWire traffic comes from the United
`States. Id. ¶ 4. Defendants also claim they are beneficiaries of the protections in the
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Id. ¶ 29. They have instructed website visitors
`how to use virtual private networks (“VPNs”) to avoid United States law
`enforcement and the National Security Agency, id. ¶¶ 2, 29, and they have a contract
`with Cloudflare to ensure that PrimeWire has reliable services in the United States,
`id. ¶ 28. While the Ninth Circuit has held that a court does not have personal
`jurisdiction over a website operator whose United States users upload infringing
`content and over a website operator who uses geolocated advertisements to attract
`new users, Wanat, 970 F.3d at 1210–11, here, Defendants have targeted the United
`States specifically rather than global internet users generally. The references to
`United States laws, the large portion of United States–based website traffic, and the
`contract with Cloudflare demonstrate Defendants’ intent to have PrimeWire target
`the United States specifically with their activities. Thus, Defendants have
`purposefully directed their activities at the United States.
`
`The claims arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts with the United States
`because the claims arise out of the operation of a website intentionally targeted at
`the United States. Lastly, “where a defendant who purposefully has directed [its]
`activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, [it] must present a
`compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render
`jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477
`(1985). Because Defendants have not appeared to contest the exercise of jurisdiction,
`Defendants have not shown the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2478
`
`C.
`
`Procedural Requirements
`
`D.
`
`Eitel Factors
`
`The Court thus concludes that it can properly consider the entry of default
`
`judgment against Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`The motion meets the procedural requirements of Local Rule 55-1. The Clerk
`entered default against Defendants on February 1, 2022. ECF No. 34. Defendants
`are not infants or incompetent, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not
`apply. Defendants have been served with notice. Klaus Decl. ¶¶ 3–7, ECF No. 36-
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`The first Eitel factor examines whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced if
`
`default judgment is not granted. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. A plaintiff suffers prejudice
`if there is no recourse for recovery absent default judgment. Philip Morris USA Inc.
`v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 499 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Plaintiffs allege
`they have suffered significant harm to their businesses due to infringement.
`Defendants also remain unidentified, Van Voorn Decl. ¶¶ 37–47, so it will be difficult
`for Plaintiffs to get recovery without default judgment. This supports entering
`default judgment. Panda Rest. Grp., Inc. v. Enymedia, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-3560-AB-
`AS, 2021 WL 4927416, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021) (finding prejudice where a
`defendant does not appear in a copyright infringement case).
`
`
`
`The second and third Eitel factors require that the plaintiff “state a claim on
`
`which the [plaintiff] may recover.” Castworld, 219 F.R.D. at 499 (alteration in
`original) (quoting PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1175 (C.D.
`Cal. 2002)). Plaintiffs seek default judgment on its copyright claims for induced and
`contributory infringement.
`
`To state a claim for induced copyright infringement, a plaintiff must
`
`demonstrate four elements: “(1) the distribution of a device or product, (2) acts of
`infringement, (3) an object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, and
`(4) causation.” Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1032 (9th Cir.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Prejudice to Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`2. Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims and Sufficiency of Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:2479
`
`2013). Plaintiffs properly allege each element. First, Defendants operated the
`PrimeWire website and made it available to others. Compl. ¶¶ 37–41.
`
`
`Second, Plaintiffs allege two acts of direct infringement by third parties. “To
`prove [direct] copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) ownership of
`the allegedly infringed work and (2) copying of the protected elements of the work
`by the defendant.” Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 984 (9th
`Cir. 2017) (quoting Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir.
`1991)). The Complaint alleges Plaintiffs are the true and rightful owners of the
`copyrightable works in this case and have certificates of copyright registration.
`Compl. ¶ 21; Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1. Copyright registrations are prima facie
`evidence of the validity and ownership of copyrights. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). The first
`alleged act of copying protected elements is third parties making unauthorized
`videos in violation of the reproduction right protected in 17 U.S.C. § 106(1). Compl.
`¶¶ 38–40; see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir.
`2001) (“Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate
`plaintiffs' reproduction rights.”). The second is third parties streaming works over
`the internet in violation of the public performance right protected by 17 U.S.C.
`§ 106(4). Compl. ¶¶ 38–40; see Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Galindo, No. 2:20-
`cv-03129-SVW-GJS, 2020 WL 3124347, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) (“The
`internet streaming of full copyrighted works without authorization constitutes a
`violation of this exclusive right.”).
`
`Third, Defendants promoted infringement by featuring Plaintiffs’ works on
`the website, by curating third-party streaming links, and by providing detailed
`instructions for rating and streaming these works. Compl. ¶¶ 41–57. Fourth,
`Defendants cause and encourage infringing third parties to provide streaming links
`to PrimeWire. Id. ¶¶ 41–51. Thus, Plaintiffs have properly alleged induced
`infringement.
`
`To state a claim for contributory copyright infringement, a plaintiff must
`
`show: (1) the defendant knows of a third party’s direct infringement; and (2) that the
`defendant materially contributed to or induced the infringement. Perfect 10, Inc. v.
`Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 670 (9th Cir. 2017). Defendants moderate the third-
`party links to confirm these links meet PrimeWire requirements, Compl. ¶ 46, use a
`rating system to encourage third parties to post links, id. ¶ 42, conceal their own
`identities, id. ¶¶ 58–62, advise users to use VPNs to conceal their identity, id. ¶ 2,
`and provide a service that connects the streaming performances and internet users,
`id. ¶¶ 1, 3. These allegations establish knowledge because they demonstrate
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:2480
`
`The second and third factors support entering default judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Sum of Money at Stake
`
`4.
`
`Possibility of Dispute
`
`awareness of mass copyright infringement and infringement of Plaintiffs’ works. See
`Napster, 239 F.3d at 1021 (“[I]f a computer system operator learns of specific
`infringing material available on his system and fails to purge such material from the
`system, the operator knows of and contributes to direct infringement.”). These
`allegations establish the material contribution element because Defendants
`substantially assist with direct infringement by allowing infringing third parties to
`display their works to more users. Cf. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols.,
`Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding operating servers on which
`infringing material resides constitutes material contribution).
`
`
`
`
`
`In the fourth Eitel factor, the Court balances “the amount of money at stake in
`
`relation to the seriousness of Defendant’s conduct.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at
`1176. On this motion, Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages, but only an
`injunction preventing Defendants from displaying and reproducing Plaintiffs’ works.
`This factor therefore weighs in favor of default judgment. See id. at 1176–77 (finding
`amount at stake favored default judgment where plaintiff sought injunctive relief,
`not monetary damages, for trademark infringement).
`
`
`
`
`The fifth Eitel factor examines whether there is likelihood of a dispute of
`material facts. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. Upon entry of default, the court accepts
`all well-pleaded facts as true. Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1080. As such, when a plaintiff
`pleads the facts necessary to prevail, there is little possibility of dispute over material
`facts. Castworld, 219 F.R.D. at 500. Plaintiffs’ Complaint adequately alleges
`copyright infringement, so the possibility of dispute is remote.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Possibility of Excusable Neglect
`
`The sixth Eitel factor considers whether the defendant’s actions may be due
`to excusable neglect. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. There is little possibility of excusable
`neglect when the defendant is properly served or is aware of the litigation. Wecosign,
`Inc., v. IFG Holdings, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Plaintiffs
`properly served Defendants, and Defendants have made changes to the PrimeWire
`website in response to this litigation. See Reply, ECF No. 37; Notice of Changes,
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2481
`
`ECF No. 39; Notice of Defaulting Defs.’ Resp., ECF No. 42. The possibility of
`excusable neglect is minimal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
`
`“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.”
`Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. “However, the mere existence of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)
`indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not dispositive.” PepsiCo, 238 F.
`Supp. 2d at 1177 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants failed to respond
`to Plaintiffs’ Complaint or offer any defense in this matter, precluding a decision on
`the merits. This factor does not preclude entry of default judgment. See id.
`
`Weighing the Eitel factors, the Court finds that default judgment is
`appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`E. Remedy
`
`Through this motion, Plaintiffs seek an injunction. Am. Proposed Order, ECF
`No. 39-1. Courts may grant injunctive relief for copyright infringement “on such
`terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.”
`17 U.S.C. § 502(a). To obtain a permanent injunction, “a plaintiff must demonstrate:
`(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such
`as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,
`considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy
`in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a
`permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391
`(2006).
`
`The Court incorporates the analysis of the irreparable injury, balance of
`
`hardships, and public interest factors from its order granting the motion for a
`preliminary injunction. Order 4–6. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for
`unauthorized streaming where they are unlikely to collect any damages. Metro-
`Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1219–20 (C.D.
`Cal. 2007); Jackson v. Sturkie, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
`(granting permanent injunction as part of default judgment in copyright infringement
`action in part because “defendant’s lack of participation in this litigation has given
`the court no assurance that defendant’s infringing activity will cease”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2482
`
`A permanent injunction is thus appropriate under the eBay factors. Plaintiffs
`
`bring to the attention of the Court that Defendants have allegedly changed their
`websites to comply with the preliminary injunction and the relief Plaintiffs requested
`in the permanent injunction. Reply; Notice of Changes; Notice of Defaulting Defs.’
`Resp. A federal court does not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief if the party
`against whom the injunction would be enforced voluntarily ceases that activity and
`it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongfully behavior could not reasonably be
`expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is the burden of the
`party voluntarily ceasing its conduct to appear and make the strong showing it cannot
`reasonably be expected to restart its behavior. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S.
`85, 92 (2013). Defendants have not defended this lawsuit despite receiving notice
`and despite changing the PrimeWire website in response to the Court’s orders.
`Should Defendants wish to make this showing, Defendants are free to enter an
`appearance and move to set aside the default judgment. Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 55(c), 60(b).
`
`Plaintiffs request a new form of injunctive relief beyond the scope of the
`
`preliminary injunction: that Defendants transfer the operation of the PrimeWire
`websites to Plaintiffs. Am. Proposed Order ¶ 3. Other courts have approved this form
`of relief in copyright infringement cases. E.g., Warner Bros. Ent., Inc. v. Vega, No.
`CV 11-05985 SJO (SPx), 2012 WL 13008442, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012);
`McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC v. Khan, 323 F. Supp. 3d 488, 500–01
`(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases). The Court concludes this is appropriate and
`authorizes this requested relief.
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the scope and timing of discovery.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1), a party “may not seek discovery from any source before
`the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . . [unless] authorized by these
`rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)
`also provides that “[t]he court may conduct hearings or make referrals . . . when, to
`enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: . . . (B) determine the amount of
`damages; . . . or (D) investigate any other matter.” Courts often allow discovery on
`the issue of damages after the entry of default. See, e.g., Oakley, Inc. v. Moda
`Collection, LLC, No. SACV 16-160-JLS (JCGx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191048, at
`*19–20 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) (collecting cases). The Court grants Plaintiffs leave
`to conduct discovery to ascertain the existence and amount of damages.
`
`
`Leave to Conduct Discovery
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2483
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court grants the motion as to liability against Defendants for Plaintiffs’
`
`claims of copyright infringement. The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ requested
`permanent injunction. The Court orders the following:
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants, and all individuals who serve as Defendants’ officers,
`agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and other persons who
`have notice of this injunction and are in privity with Defendants
`and/or acting in active concert or participation with Defendants, their
`officers, agents, servants employees or attorneys, ARE HEREBY
`RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:
`linking to, distributing, reproducing, copying, hosting,
`a.
`uploading, making available for download, indexing,
`displaying, exhibiting, publicly performing (including without
`limitation streaming, transmitting, or otherwise communicating
`to the public), or otherwise exploiting or making any use of any
`rights under the Copyright Act in any motion picture or other
`audiovisual work (or portion(s) thereof in any form), the rights
`to which Plaintiffs or their affiliates own or control
`(“Copyrighted Works”);
`taking any action that directly or indirectly enables, facilitates,
`permits, assists, solicits, encourages or induces any user or
`other third party (i) to link to, distribute, reproduce, copy, host,
`upload, download, index, display, exhibit, publicly perform
`(including without limitation streaming, transmitting, or
`otherwise communicating to the public), or otherwise use or
`exploit in any manner any of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works or
`portion(s) thereof; or (ii) to make available any of Plaintiffs’
`Copyrighted Works or portion(s) thereof for linking to,
`distributing, reproducing, copying, hosting, uploading,
`downloading, indexing, displaying, exhibiting, publicly
`performing (including without limitation streaming,
`transmitting, or otherwise communicating to the public), or for
`any other use or means of exploitation;
`transferring or performing any function that results in the
`transfer of the registration of the domain name of
`www.primewire.li, www.primewire.ag, www.primewire.vc, or
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2484
`
`d.
`
`www.primewire.tf (“PrimeWire Websites”) to any other
`registrant or registrar other than as identified by Plaintiffs; and
`assisting, aiding or abetting any other person or business entity
`in engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in
`the above subparagraphs (a)–(c); and
`2. In order to give practical effect to the Permanent Injunction, the
`PrimeWire Websites are hereby ordered to be immediately transferred
`by the Defendants, their assignees and/or successors-in-interest or
`title, and/or the domain name registrars (currently Sarek Oy and
`Gandi SAS, collectively “Registrars”) to Plaintiffs’ control. To the
`extent the current Registrars do not facilitate the transfer of the
`PrimeWire Websites to Plaintiffs’ control within five (5) days of
`receipt of this Judgment, upon Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants and the
`top level domain (TLD) registry for each of the PrimeWire Websites
`(Nic AG, SWITCH, Afilias, Inc., and Association Française pour le
`Nommage Internet en Coopération (A.F.N.I.C.), collectively
`“Registries”), or their administrators, including backend registry
`operators or administrators, shall, within thirty (30) days, (i) change
`the registrar of record for the PrimeWire Websites to a registrar of
`Plaintiffs’ choosing, and that registrar shall transfer the subject
`domain names to Plaintiffs, or (ii) place the PrimeWire Websites on
`registry hold status for the life of the current registration, thus
`removing them from the TLD zone files maintained by the registries
`which link the PrimeWire Websites to the IP addresses where the
`associated websites are hosted.
`The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Permanent Injunction.
`Plaintiffs may request that the Permanent Injunction apply to
`additional domains if the Court determines that the evidence
`sufficiently establishes such domains are being operated by
`Defendants and infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.
`
`3.
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may service this order on
`Defendants by email;
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to seek third-
`party discovery on damages for their copyright infringement claims; and
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ requirement to post a bond shall
`be dissolved and that bond relinquished.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09317-MCS-SK Document 43 Filed 04/20/22 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2485
`
`The Court gives Plaintiffs leave to conduct discovery as to damages and defers
`the entry of final judgment until further motion by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall file
`either a further motion for default judgment or an explanation for why they need
`more time to conduct damages discovery within 90 days of this order. The Court will
`deem failure to timely file a further motion as abandonment of the unresolved claims
`for damages and costs.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
`
`