Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
`The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`AT SEATTLE
`
`NO. 2:20-cv-01048 MJP
`NO. 2:20-cv-01048 MJP
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
`DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
`DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
`DEFENDANTS KISS LIBRARY,
`DEFENDANTS KISS LIBRARY,
`RODION VYNNYCHENKO, AND
`RODION VYNNYCHENKO, AND
`ARTEM BESSHAPOCHNY
`ARTEM BESSHAPOCHNY
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`NOVEMBER 8, 2021
`NOVEMBER 8, 2021
`
`AMAZON CONTENT SERVICES LLC, a
`AMAZON CONTENT SERVICES LLC, a
`Delaware corporation, PENGUIN RANDOM
`Delaware corporation, PENGUIN RANDOM
`HOUSE LLC, a Delaware corporation, LEE
`HOUSE LLC, a Delaware corporation, LEE
`CHILD, SYLVIA DAY, JOHN GRISHAM, C.J.
`CHILD, SYLVIA DAY, JOHN GRISHAM, C.J.
`LYONS, DOUG PRESTON, JIM
`LYONS, DOUG PRESTON, JIM
`RASENBERGER, T.J. STILES, R.L. STINE,
`RASENBERGER, T.J. STILES, R.L. STINE,
`MONIQUE TRUONG, SCOTT TUROW,
`MONIQUE TRUONG, SCOTT TUROW,
`NICHOLAS WEINSTOCK, AND STUART
`NICHOLAS WEINSTOCK, AND STUART
`WOODS,
`WOODS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`v.
`KISS LIBRARY d/b/a KISSLY.NET,
`KISS LIBRARY d/b/a KISSLY.NET,
`WTFFASTSPRING.BID, LIBLY.NET, and
`WTFFASTSPRING.BID, LIBLY.NET, and
`CHEAP-LIBRARY.COM, RODION
`CHEAP-LIBRARY.COM, RODION
`VYNNYCHENKO, ARTEM
`VYNNYCHENKO, ARTEM
`BESSHAPOCHNY, and DOES 1-10,
`BESSHAPOCHNY, and DOES 1-10,
`Defendants.
`Defendants.
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`Page
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`1
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2
`2
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`I.
`
`II.
`II.
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims. ................................................................................................. 2
`Plaintiffs' Claims
`2
`
`Defendants Intentionally Hide Their True Identities and Willfully Distribute
`Defendants Intentionally Hide Their True Identities and Willfully Distribute
`Unauthorized Copies of Plaintiffs’ Protected Works. .......................................... 3
`Unauthorized Copies of Plaintiffs' Protected Works.
`3
`
`Defendants Spoliate Evidence, Attempt to Evade Service, and Fail to Defend or
`Defendants Spoliate Evidence, Attempt to Evade Service, and Fail to Defend or
`Appear in this Case. .............................................................................................. 3
`3
`Appear in this Case
`
`III.
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT
`5
`
`A.
`A.
`
`The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enter Default Judgment. ....................................... 5
`The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enter Default Judgment
`5
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`2.
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction. ...................................................................... 5
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
`5
`
`Personal Jurisdiction. ................................................................................ 5
`Personal Jurisdiction
`5
`
`B.
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Default Judgment. ........................................................ 9
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Default Judgment.
`9
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`2.
`
`3.
`3.
`
`4.
`4.
`
`5.
`5.
`
`6.
`6.
`
`First Eitel Factor: Plaintiffs Will Be Prejudiced Without a Default
`First Eitel Factor: Plaintiffs Will Be Prejudiced Without a Default
`Judgment. .................................................................................................. 9
`Judgment
`9
`
`Second and Third Eitel Factors: Plaintiffs’ Well-Pled Complaint
`Second and Third Eitel Factors: Plaintiffs' Well-Pled Complaint
`Establishes Defendants’ Liability for Copyright Infringement. ............... 9
`Establishes Defendants' Liability for Copyright Infringement.
`9
`
`Fourth Eitel Factor: Defendants’ Egregious Conduct Warrants the
`Fourth Eitel Factor: Defendants' Egregious Conduct Warrants the
`Statutory Damages Sought by Plaintiffs. ................................................ 10
`Statutory Damages Sought by Plaintiffs
` 10
`
`Fifth Eitel Factor: Defendants’ Willful Infringement Is Undisputed. ... 11
`Fifth Eitel Factor: Defendants' Willful Infringement Is Undisputed
`11
`
`Sixth Eitel Factor: Defendants’ Failure to Appear Is Inexcusable. ....... 12
`Sixth Eitel Factor: Defendants' Failure to Appear Is Inexcusable.
` 12
`
`Seventh Eitel Factor: Defendants’ Knowing Failure to Defend
`Seventh Eitel Factor: Defendants' Knowing Failure to Defend
`Outweighs Preference for Decisions on the Merits. ............................... 12
` 12
`Outweighs Preference for Decisions on the Merits.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Willful Statutory Damages. ........................................ 13
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Willful Statutory Damages
`13
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`2.
`
`Defendants Willfully Infringed at Least Fifty-Two of Plaintiffs’
`Defendants Willfully Infringed at Least Fifty-Two of Plaintiffs'
`Copyrighted Works. ............................................................................... 13
`Copyrighted Works.
`13
`
`Defendants’ Extensive and Deliberate Abuse of Plaintiffs’ Well-Known
`Defendants' Extensive and Deliberate Abuse of Plaintiffs' Well-Known
`Works Warrants Maximum Statutory Damages. .................................... 15
`Works Warrants Maximum Statutory Damages
`15
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page i
`Page i
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`D.
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Permanent Injunctive Relief. ...................................... 20
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Permanent Injunctive Relief
`20
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`2.
`
`3.
`3.
`
`4.
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs Suffered Irreparable Harm. ..................................................... 20
`Plaintiffs Suffered Irreparable Harm.
`20
`
`Monetary Damages Alone Are Inadequate. ........................................... 21
`21
`Monetary Damages Alone Are Inadequate.
`
`The Balance of Equities Favors a Permanent Injunction. ...................... 22
`22
`The Balance of Equities Favors a Permanent Injunction.
`
`The Public Interest Would Be Served by a Permanent Injunction. ........ 23
`The Public Interest Would Be Served by a Permanent Injunction.
`23
`
`IV.
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 23
`CONCLUSION
`23
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page ii
`Page ii
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Cases
`
`Am. Rena Int’l Corp. v. Sis-Joyce Int’l Co.,
`Am. Rena Int'l Corp. v. Sis-Joyce Int'l Co.,
`534 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................22
`22
`534 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2013)
`
`Aries Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Angelica’s Record Distribs., Inc.,
`Aries Music Entm't, Inc. v. Angelica's Record Distribs., Inc.,
`506 F. App’x 550 (9th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................11
`11
`506 F. App'x 550 (9th Cir. 2013)
`
`Authentify Pat. Co. v. StrikeForce Techs., Inc.,
`Authentift Pat. Co. v. StrikeForce Techs., Inc.,
`39 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ................................................................................8
`39 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
`8
`
`Aweida Arts, Inc. v. Pure Glass Distrib., Inc.,
`Aweida Arts, Inc. v. Pure Glass Distrib., Inc.,
`157 F. Supp. 3d 929 (W.D. Wash. 2015) ........................................................................6, 7, 8
`6, 7, 8
`157 F. Supp. 3d 929 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
`
`Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc.,
`Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc.,
`223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................8
`223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000)
`8
`
`Beck v. Pike,
`Beck v. Pike,
`2017 WL 530354 (W.D. Wash. 2017) ..................................................................................12
`12
`2017 WL 530354 (W.D. Wash. 2017)
`
`BMW of N. Am. LLC v. K VIP Auto Body,
`BMW of N. Am. LLC v. K VIP Auto Body,
`2018 WL 2452428 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................15
`2018 WL 2452428 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
`15
`
`Chan v. Soc’y Expeditions, Inc.,
`Chan v. Soc'y Expeditions, Inc.,
`39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................6
`39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)
`6
`
`CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.,
`CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.,
`653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................6, 7
`653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011)
`6, 7
`
`Corbis Corp. v. Integrity Wealth Mgmt., Inc.,
`Corbis Corp. v. Integrity Wealth Mgmt., Inc.,
`2009 WL 2486163 (W.D. Wash. 2009) ..................................................................................7
`2009 WL 2486163 (W.D. Wash. 2009)
`7
`
`CytoSport, Inc. v. Vital Pharms., Inc.,
`CytoSport, Inc. v. Vital Pharms., Inc.,
`617 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (E.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................21
`21
`617 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ................................................................................................................5
`571 U.S. 117 (2014)
`5
`
`Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.,
`Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.,
`528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................14
`14
`528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008)
`
`Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,
`Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................10, 16, 22
`10, 16, 22
`869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017)
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page iii
`Page iii
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`Dr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr.,
`Dr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr.,
`749 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................10
`749 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
`10
`
`Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite,
`Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite,
`561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................13
`561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009)
`13
`
`eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge,
`eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge,
`100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000) .................................................................................20
`100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
`20
`
`eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ........................................................................................................20, 21
`20, 21
`547 U.S. 388 (2006)
`
`Eitel v. McCool,
`Eitel v. McCool,
`782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................... passim
`782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986)
`passim
`
`Entm’t, Ltd. v. Allstar Vending, Inc.,
`Entm't, Ltd. v. Allstar Vending, Inc.,
`97 F. Supp. 3d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .....................................................................................14
`14
`97 F. Supp. 3d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
`
`F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.,
`F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.,
`344 U.S. 228 (1952) ........................................................................................................13, 19
`344 U.S. 228 (1952)
`13, 19
`
`Getty Images (U.S.), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics,
`Getty Images (US.), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics,
`2014 WL 1116775 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ........................................................................ passim
`2014 WL 1116775 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
`passim
`
`Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics,
`Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics,
`2014 WL 358412 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ................................................................. 9, 10, 11, 12
`2014 WL 358412 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
` 9, 10, 11, 12
`
`Hydentra HLP Int. Ltd. v. Sagan Ltd.,
`Hydentra HLP Int. Ltd. v. Sagan Ltd.,
`783 F. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................8
`783 F. App'x 663 (9th Cir. 2019)
`8
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ................................................................................................................6
`326 U.S. 310 (1945)
`6
`
`Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc.,
`Internet Specialties W, Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc.,
`559 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................23
`559 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009)
`23
`
`Jackson v. Sturkie,
`Jackson v. Sturkie,
`255 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2003) .................................................................................21
`21
`255 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
`
`Klauber Bros., Inc. v. Kylie Shop, Inc.,
`Klauber Bros., Inc. v. Kylie Shop, Inc.,
`2020 WL 8474583 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................19
`2020 WL 8474583 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
`19
`
`L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l,
`L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l,
`149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................13
`149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998)
`13
`
`LHF Prods., Inc. v. Holmes,
`LHF Prods., Inc. v. Holmes,
`2018 WL 3742189 (W.D. Wash. 2018) ............................................................................5, 12
`5, 12
`2018 WL 3742189 (W.D. Wash. 2018)
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page iv
`Page iv
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,
`MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,
`991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................20
`991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)
`20
`
`Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,
`Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,
`647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................6
`647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011)
`6
`
`MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`243 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ...................................................................................9
`243 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2003)
`9
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Mountain W. Computers, Inc.,
`Microsoft Corp. v. Mountain W. Computers, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4479490 (W.D. Wash. 2015) ..................................................................................7
`2015 WL 4479490 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
`7
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Nop,
`Microsoft Corp. v. Nop,
`549 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (E.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................13
`549 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
`13
`
`NYC Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc.,
`NYC Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc.,
`704 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................................................................17
`704 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
`17
`
`Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc.,
`Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) .........................................................................................13, 19
`13, 19
`909 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990)
`
`PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security Cans,
`PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security Cans,
`238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ...........................................................................10, 12
`10, 12
`238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
`
`Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods, Inc.,
`Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods, Inc.,
`219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ...........................................................................................19
`219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003)
`19
`
`Philips Oral Healthcare, LLC v. Shenzhen Sincere Mold Tech. Co.,
`Philips Oral Healthcare, LLC v. Shenzhen Sincere Mold Tech. Co.,
`2019 WL 1572675 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ..................................................................................8
`2019 WL 1572675 (W.D. Wash. 2019)
`8
`
`Picot v. Weston,
`Picot v. Weston,
`780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................6
`780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015)
`6
`
`Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
`Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,
`284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................8
`284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002)
`8
`
`Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines,
`Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines,
`113 Wn.2d 763 (1989) .............................................................................................................6
`113 Wn.2d 763 (1989)
`6
`
`Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,
`Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,
`240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................20
`240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001)
`20
`
`TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal,
`TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal,
`826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................5
`826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987)
`5
`
`To v. Nguyen,
`To v. Nguyen,
`2008 WL 11340345 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................19
`2008 WL 11340345 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
`19
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page v
`Page v
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`Tu v. TAD Sys. Tech. Inc.,
`Tu v. TAD Sys. Tech. Inc.,
`2009 WL 2905780 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .....................................................................................23
`2009 WL 2905780 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
`23
`
`In re Tuli,
`In re Tuli,
`172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................5
`172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999)
`5
`
`Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.,
`Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc.,
`132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................................21
`21
`132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997)
`
`UN4 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich,
`UN4 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ............................................................................10
`372 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2019)
`10
`
`Unicolors, Inc. v. Joy 153, Inc.,
`Unicolors, Inc. v. Joy 153, Inc.,
`2016 WL 3462128 (C.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................19
`2016 WL 3462128 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
`19
`
`Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
`Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................14
`14
`853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017)
`
`Universal Music MGB NA LLC v. Quantum Music Works, Inc.,
`Universal Music MGB NA LLC v. Quantum Music Works, Inc.,
`769 F. App’x 445 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................7
`769 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2019)
`7
`
`Warner Bros. Home Entm’t Inc. v. Jimenez,
`Warner Bros. Home Entm't Inc. v. Jimenez,
`2013 WL 3397672 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................21
`21
`2013 WL 3397672 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
`
`Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc.,
`Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc.,
`845 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................23
`845 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
`23
`
`Wilson v. Moore & Assocs., Inc.,
`Wilson v. Moore & Assocs., Inc.,
`564 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1977) ...................................................................................................4
`4
`564 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1977)
`
`Windsurfing Int’l Inc. v. AMF, Inc.,
`Windsurfing Int'l Inc. v. AMF, Inc.,
`782 F.2d 995 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...............................................................................................22
`22
`782 F.2d 995 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F.3d 275, 287 (2d Cir. 2012) ............................................................17
`WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F.3d 275, 287 (2d Cir. 2012)
`17
`
`Statutes
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ...........................................................................................................................10
`17 U.S.C. § 106
`10
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501 .............................................................................................................................5
`17 U.S.C. § 501
`5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 502(a) ...................................................................................................................2, 20
`2, 20
`17 U.S.C. § 502(a)
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) ........................................................................................................2, 11, 13
`2, 11, 13
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(3)(A) .......................................................................................................14, 15
`14, 15
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(3)(A)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ...........................................................................................................................5
`28 U.S.C. § 1331
`5
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page vi
`Page vi
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) .......................................................................................................................5
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)
`5
`
`RCW 4.28.185 ...............................................................................................................................6
`RCW 4.28.185
`6
`
`Regulations
`Regulations
`
`General Data Protection Regulation, art. 17 ..................................................................................4
`4
`General Data Protection Regulation, art. 17
`
`Rules
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) ..............................................................................................................5
`5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) ...............................................................................................................8, 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)
`8, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 ............................................................................................................2, 4, 5, 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55
`2, 4, 5, 23
`
`Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2) ...................................................................................................................13
`Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2)
`13
`
`Local Civil Rule 55 .............................................................................................................2, 5, 23
`Local Civil Rule 55
`2, 5, 23
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`U.S. Const., Due Process Clause ...................................................................................................6
`U.S. Const., Due Process Clause
`6
`
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:20-cv-01048-MJP)
`Page vii
`Page vii
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`Seattle, WA 98104-1640
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 39 Filed 11/08/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`For at least the past five years, Defendants Kiss Library, Rodion Vynnychenko, and
`For at least the past five years, Defendants Kiss Library, Rodion Vynnychenko, and
`Artem Besshapochny (“Defendants”)1 operated and profited from an illicit, international piracy
`Artem Besshapochny ("Defendants")1 operated and profited from an illicit, international piracy
`ring that willfully infringed the rights of Publishers Amazon Content Services LLC and
`ring that willfully infringed the rights of Publishers Amazon Content Services LLC and
`Penguin Random House LLC, and Authors Lee Child, Sylvia Day, John Grisham, C.J. Lyons,
`Penguin Random House LLC, and Authors Lee Child, Sylvia Day, John Grisham, C.J. Lyons,
`Doug Preston, Jim Rasenberger, T.J. Stiles, R.L. Stine, Monique Truong, Scott Turow,
`Doug Preston, Jim Rasenberger, T.J. Stiles, R.L. Stine, Monique Truong, Scott Turow,
`Nicholas Weinstock, and Stuart Woods (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Through a network of
`Nicholas Weinstock, and Stuart Woods (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Through a network of
`evolving mirror websites, fake aliases, false contact information, and evasive tactics,
`evolving mirror websites, fake aliases, false contact information, and evasive tactics,
`Defendants illegally distributed a plethora of Plaintiffs’ literary copyrighted works.
`Defendants illegally distributed a plethora of Plaintiffs' literary copyrighted works.
`Defendants’ conduct inflicted both monetary and non-monetary harm on Plaintiffs, such as lost
`Defendants' conduct inflicted both monetary and non-monetary harm on Plaintiffs, such as lost
`sales, lost customers, harm to reputation and goodwill, disruption of publishing and distribution
`sales, lost customers, harm to reputation and goodwill, disruption of publishing and distribution
`networks, and interference with existing and prospective business relationships. Plaintiffs were
`networks, and interference with existing and prospective business relationships. Plaintiffs were
`forced to bring this lawsuit to stop that ongoing, irreparable harm and hold Defendants
`forced to bring this lawsuit to stop that ongoing, irreparable harm and hold Defendants
`responsible for their blatant piracy.
`responsible for their blatant piracy.
`After Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Defendants—located in and operating from Ukraine—
`After Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Defendants—located in and operating from Ukraine—
`doubled down on their efforts to evade accountability for their piracy. For example, rather than
`doubled down on their efforts to evade accountability for their piracy. For example, rather than
`filing an answer or appearing before the Court, Defendants turned to spoliation, quickly
`filing an answer or appearing before the Court, Defendants turned to spoliation, quickly
`submitting data deletion requests to the payment processors and email providers that they used
`submitting data deletion requests to the payment processors and email providers that they used
`to operate their piracy scheme. Further, Defendant Vynnychenko deregistered the fake address
`to operate their piracy scheme. Further, Defendant Vynnychenko deregistered the fake address
`he used to register Kisslibrary.com and registered a different (also fake) address, forcing
`he used to register Kisslibrary.com and registered a different (also fake) address, forcing
`Plaintiffs to engage a local investigator to uncover his true address to serve him under the
`Plaintiffs to engage a local investigator to uncover his true address to serve him under the
`Hague Convention and local Ukrainian law. Even after being properly served, Defendants
`Hague Convention and local Ukrainian law. Even after being properly served, Defendants
`refused to participate or file an appearance in this action. Because Defendants intentionally
`refused to participate or file an appearance in this action. Because Defendants intentionally
`failed to answer for their misconduct, the Clerk entered an Order of Default against them on
`failed to answer for their misconduct, the Clerk entered an Order of Default against them on
`September 13, 2021. See Dkt. 35.
`September 13, 2021. See Dkt. 35.
`
`1 Plaintiffs dismissed defendant Jack Brown without prejudice on October 8, 2021, see Dkt. 37,
`'Plaintiffs dismissed defendant Jack Brown without prejudice on October 8, 2021, see Dkt. 37,
`and are not moving for default judgment against him.
`and are not moving for default judgment against him.
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (No. 2:2