Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`CASE NO. C20-1048 MJP
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR DEFAULT
`JUDGMENT
`
`AMAZON CONTENT SERVICES
`LLC, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`KISS LIBRARY, RODION
`VYNNYCHENKO, ARTEM
`BESSHAPOCHNY, JACK BROWN,
`DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No.
`
`39). Having reviewed the Motion, all supporting materials, and the relevant portions of the
`
`record, the Court GRANTS the Motion and ENTERS DEFAULT JUDGMENT against
`
`Defendants Kiss Library, Rodion Vynnychenko, and Artem Besshapochny (“Defendants”) and
`
`ENTERS a PERMANENT INJUNCTION against Defendants on the terms set forth in this
`
`Order. This Order does not apply to Jack Brown because Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
`
`claims against him. (See Dkt. No. 37.)
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs are a group of publishers and authors who allege that Defendants illegally
`
`copied, distributed, and sold Plaintiffs’ copyrighted literary works. (Complaint ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 1).)
`
`The authors include Lee Child, Sylvia Day, John Grisham, C.J. Lyons, Doug Preston, Jim
`
`Rasenberger, T.J. Stiles, R.L. Stine, Monique Truong, Scott Turow, Nicholas Weinstock, and
`
`Stuart Woods (“Authors”). (Id.) The publishers are Penguin Random House LLC and Amazon
`
`Content Services LLC (“Publishers”). (Id.) Plaintiffs sued Defendants to recover damages and
`
`put an end to the illegal trade of their literary works.
`
`Defendants Vynnychenko and Besshapochny are both Ukrainian nationals who created
`
`and operated Kiss Library through a variety of websites to offer pirated copies of the Authors’
`
`works without paying the Authors or Publishers royalties for the sales. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7, 23-25.)
`
`Defendants used a series of ruses to hide their identities and avoid both detection and
`
`accountability. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 38, 46-49; Declaration of John Goldmark ¶¶ 5-13 (Dkt. No. 40).)
`
`Plaintiffs have identified at least 52 different copyrighted literary works that Defendants illegally
`
`distributed and sold through their websites. (Id. ¶¶ 41-42; Goldmark Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiffs
`
`have suffered economic losses through lost royalties and claim to have suffered non-economic
`
`damages in the form of lost customers, damaged goodwill, and disruption of distribution
`
`licenses. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-52.)
`
`Defendants have not participated in this lawsuit and have taken efforts to avoid
`
`accountability. Despite being given a notice and opportunity to be heard, Defendants did not
`
`respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 13-14.) The Court
`
`then converted the TRO into a motion for preliminary injunction, which it granted. (Dkt. No. 15.)
`
`Defendant Vynnychenko twice refused to accept service and ultimately failed to appear at a
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`confirmation of service proceeding required under Ukrainian law. (See Status Report (Dkt. No.
`
`31); Declaration of Artem Krykun-Trush ISO Status Report ¶ 4 (Dkt. No. 32).) Ultimately
`
`Defendants were properly served in compliance with the Court’s Order on Service, the Hague
`
`Convention, and local Ukrainian law. (Dkt. No. 10; Goldmark Decl. ¶¶ 14-16; Dkt. No. 31 at 2.)
`
`After the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs and their Ukrainian investigator
`
`uncovered further efforts Defendants have undertaken to hide their identities and destroy
`
`evidence after the lawsuit was filed. (Goldmark Decl. ¶¶ 5-13.) In light of Defendants’ failure to
`
`appear and defend against Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs moved for and obtained default against
`
`Defendants. They now seek default judgment and a permanent injunction.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`After entry of default, the Court may enter a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). This
`
`determination is discretionary. See Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392
`
`(9th Cir. 1988). “Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the
`
`entry of a default judgment include: (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). In performing this analysis, “the general rule is that well-pled allegations in the
`
`complaint regarding liability are deemed true.” Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906
`
`(9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). And “[t]he district court is not required to make
`
`detailed findings of fact.” Id.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`Before entering default judgment, the Court must assure itself that it has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`There is little doubt that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
`
`Plaintiffs brings claims under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, which fall within the Court’s
`
`original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
`
`The Court further considers personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
`
`defendant is “tested by a two-part analysis.” Chan v. Soc’y Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398, 1404
`
`(9th Cir. 1994). First, the Court inquires whether the “exercise of jurisdiction . . . satisf[ies] the
`
`requirements of the applicable state long-arm statute,” and, second, the Court determines
`
`whether asserting personal jurisdiction “comport[s] with due process.” Id. Where there is no
`
`applicable federal statute regarding personal jurisdiction, court looks instead to the law of the
`
`forum state. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A).
`
`Here, the Court considers Washington law, whose “long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the
`
`limit of federal due process.” Chan, 39 F.3d at 1405. This collapses the two-part inquiry into one
`
`question—does personal jurisdiction comply with federal due process. See id. Federal due
`
`process requires that defendants “‘have certain minimum contacts’ with the forum state ‘such
`
`that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.’” Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v.
`
`Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). A nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum
`
`contacts when: (1) the defendant “purposefully direct[s] his activities” at the forum; (2) the claim
`
`“arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities”; and (3) the exercise of
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`jurisdiction is “reasonable.” CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th
`
`Cir. 2011) (citation & internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`The Court finds that all three elements of due process are satisfied. First, Defendants
`
`purposefully directed their piracy scheme at Washington and its residents by targeting works
`
`they knew or should have known were published by Plaintiff Amazon, which is headquartered in
`
`Seattle, Washington. Defendants advertised and distributed the copyrighted works at issue to
`
`Washington consumers in violation of the Copyright Act, duping consumers and interfering with
`
`the Author Plaintiffs’ licensing relationship with Plaintiff Amazon who suffered a loss of sales in
`
`Washington. (See Compl. ¶¶ 29, 50, 52.) This satisfies the purposeful direction prong. See
`
`CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1077. Second, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement arise from and
`
`relate to Defendants’ forum-related activities, given that Defendants knowingly and intentionally
`
`infringed on a Washington-based company’s copyrighted works and compete with the company
`
`in Washington. Third, Defendants have not met their burden to show that the exercise of
`
`personal jurisdiction is unreasonable. See Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223
`
`F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that defendants bear the burden on this issue). The Court
`
`therefore finds that it has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
`
`C.
`
`Eitel Factors Favor Default Judgment
`
`The seven Eitel factors weigh in favor of entry of default judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.
`
`1.
`
`Factor One: Prejudice to Plaintiffs
`
`Without entry of default judgment Plaintiffs will be prejudiced. Plaintiffs have attempted
`
`to litigate this case and vindicate their rights under the Copyright Act against Defendants. But
`
`Defendants have failed to appear or participate in this litigation. Plaintiffs face prejudice by not
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`being able to obtain complete relief on their claims against Defendants without a default
`
`judgment. This factor weighs in favor of granting default judgment.
`
`2.
`
`Factors Two and Three: Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims and Sufficiency of
`Complaint
`
`Plaintiffs have demonstrated the merit of their claims and the sufficiency of their
`
`allegations against Defendants. “To establish direct copyright infringement, the [plaintiff] must
`
`(1) show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) demonstrate that the alleged
`
`infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. §
`
`106.” Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and
`
`quotation omitted). Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, which the Court accepts as true given
`
`Defendants’ default, show that Plaintiffs own the 52 copyrights literary works at issue and that
`
`Defendants willfully copied, displayed, and distributed these works without a license in violation
`
`of 17 U.S.C. § 106. (See Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11-22, 32, 40-42, 54, 56; Goldmark Decl. ¶ 3.) This
`
`satisfies these two Eitel factors, which weigh in favor of entry of default judgment.
`
`3.
`
`Factor Four: Sum of Money at Stake
`
`The amount Plaintiffs seek to be entered in the default judgment gives the Court some
`
`pause. Plaintiffs seek $7,800,000 in statutory damages, which is a substantial award and the
`
`statutory maximum for each of the fifty-two infringed works. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). But
`
`given the extent of the piracy scheme, Defendants’ efforts to fight or participate in this lawsuit,
`
`and the seriousness of the misconduct, the Court finds that the requested damages are reasonable.
`
`The Court finds that the amount requested does not disfavor entry of default judgment. The
`
`Court discusses the specific amount of damages requested and awarded in Section D, below.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Factor Five: Possibility of Dispute of Material Facts
`
`The Court finds little likelihood of a dispute of material fact to remain. Consistent with
`
`Ninth Circuit law, the Court deems the well-pleaded claims to be true. Fair Housing, 285 F.3d at
`
`906. Plaintiffs have also provided evidence to further corroborate the complaint’s allegations.
`
`(See, e.g., Compl. Exs A-D; Goldmark Decl. ¶¶ 2-13.) This factor weighs in favor of entry of
`
`default judgment.
`
`5.
`
`Factor Six: Whether Default is Due to Excusable Neglect
`
`The Court finds that the default was not entered due to excusable neglect. Defendants
`
`were served with the complaint and summons in accordance with the Court’s Order on Service,
`
`the Hague Convention, and Ukrainian law. (See Dkt. Nos. 10, 34.) Despite being given a
`
`reasonable opportunity to appear, Defendants chose not to defend against the claims Plaintiffs
`
`have made. There is no evidence that Defendants’ failure to oppose default is due to excusable
`
`neglect and this factor favors entry of default judgment.
`
`6.
`
`Factor Seven; Strong Policy in Favor of Decision on the Merits
`
`The Court maintains a strong policy preference in favor of resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`on the merits. But Defendants decision not to appear in this case vitiates against this policy. This
`
`factor weighs in favor of entry of default judgment.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Having considered and balanced the Eitel factors, the Court finds that entry of default
`
`judgment is proper.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Damages
`
`Plaintiffs seek an award of $150,000 for each of the 52 works Defendants illegally sold
`
`and distributed, which is the statutory maximum for willful copyright infringement. See 17
`
`U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). The Court finds this request appropriate.
`
`To obtain statutory damages for willful infringement, Plaintiffs “must show (1) that the
`
`defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were
`
`the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder’s rights.”
`
`Unicolors, Inc. v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 991 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation
`
`omitted). There is a rebuttable presumption that the infringement is willful “if the violator, or a
`
`person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be
`
`provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry,
`
`or other domain name registration authority[.]” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(3)(A).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint contains substantial allegations—deemed true—that
`
`Defendants knew the works were copyrights and took efforts to disguise from customers that the
`
`copyrighted works were illegally being distributed and sold. (Compl. ¶¶ 36-38, 44-47.) And
`
`Plaintiffs have provided further evidence that Defendants engaged in substantial efforts to hide
`
`the illegal nature of their conduct. (See Goldmark Decl. ¶¶ 5-13.) Plaintiffs also allege that
`
`Defendants provided false information to a domain name registrar in setting up some of the
`
`many websites at issue, which also satisfies the rebuttable presumption of willful infringement.
`
`See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(3)(A). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have shown Defendants
`
`willfully violated the Copyright Act.
`
`The Court has wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages to be
`
`awarded within the ranges provided by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)-(2). See Harris v. Emus Records
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984). The court is guided by “what is just in the particular
`
`case, considering the nature of the copyright, the circumstances of the infringement and the like.”
`
`Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation and
`
`quotation omitted). And “[b]ecause awards of statutory damages serve both compensatory and
`
`punitive purposes, a plaintiff may recover statutory damages whether or not there is adequate
`
`evidence of the actual damages suffered by plaintiff or of the profits reaped by defendant.” L.A.
`
`News Serv. v. Reuters Television Intern., Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation and
`
`quotation omitted). This is particularly true when the evidence of profit is within the infringers’
`
`control and they have not appeared in the action. In the absence of a uniform set of criteria to
`
`determine statutory damages for willful copyright infringement, courts generally consider four
`
`factors: “(1) the infringer’s profits and expenses saved because of the infringement; (2) the
`
`plaintiff's lost revenues; (3) the strong public interest in ensuring the integrity of copyright laws;
`
`and (4) whether the infringer acted willfully.” Getty Images (U.S.), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics, No.
`
`C13-0626JLR, 2014 WL 1116775, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2014). Generally, the first two
`
`factors are given less weight than the final two. Id.
`
`The Court finds that all four factors favor awarding the maximum statutory amount. The
`
`first two factors weigh somewhat in favor of the statutory maximum. While there is no specific
`
`evidence of Defendants’ profits or Plaintiffs’ lost revenues, that fact is not neither surprising nor
`
`dispositive since the data is solely within the absent Defendants’ control. See Getty, 2014 WL
`
`1116775, at *2. As to the third factor, the Court recognizes that public’s “compelling interest in
`
`protecting copyright owners’ marketable rights to their work and the economic incentive to
`
`continue creating” literary works. Disney, 869 F.3d at 867 (citation and quotation omitted). And
`
`as to the fourth factor, there is substantial evidence that Defendants have acted willfully. On
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`balance, these four factors support an award of the maximum statutory damages. The Court
`
`therefore AWARDS Plaintiffs’ the maximum statutory amount of $150,000 for each of the
`
`following 52 copyrighted works (“Plaintiff Works”) as follows:
`
`(a) $150,000 for willful infringement of Abducted;1
`(b) $150,000 for willful infringement of Afterburn;2
`(c) $150,000 for willful infringement of A Dark Mind;3
`(d) $150,000 for willful infringement of As Long As She Needs Me: A Novel;4
`(e) $150,000 for willful infringement of Blood on the Tracks;5
`(f) $150,000 for willful infringement of Fight Dirty;6
`(g) $150,000 for willful infringement of Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War;7
`(h) $150,000 for willful infringement of My Sister’s Grave;8
`$150,000 for willful infringement of Persuader;9
`(i)
`$150,000 for willful infringement of Red Rain: A Novel;10
`(j)
`(k) $150,000 for willful infringement of Short Straw;11
`$150,000 for willful infringement of The Book of Salt;12
`(l)
`(m) $150,000 for willful infringement of The Brilliant Disaster: JFK, Castro, and
`America’s Doomed Invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs;13
`(n) $150,000 for willful infringement of The Burden of Proof;14
`(o) $150,000 for willful infringement of The Litigators;15
`(p) $150,000 for willful infringement of Tyrannosaur Canyon;16
`
`
`
`1 Registration No. TX0007670441.
`2 Registration No. TX0008280509.
`3 Registration No. TX0007728631.
`4 Registration No. TX0005380194.
`5 Registration No. TX0008334746.
`6 Registration No. TX0008076233.
`7 Registration No. TX0005703845.
`8 Registration No. TX0008009209.
`9 Registration No. TX0006919613.
`10 Registration No. TX0007603027.
`11 Registration No. TX0006465649.
`12 Registration No. TX0005745355.
`13 Registration No. TX0007373794.
`14 Registration No. TX0002844794.
`15 Registration No. TX0007494080.
`16 Registration No. TX0006206315.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`(q) $150,000 for willful infringement of You Are Not Small;17
`(r) $150,000 for willful infringement of Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a
`New America;18
`(s) $150,000 for willful infringement of The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius
`Vanderbilt;19
`$150,000 for willful infringement of Hollow Bones;20
`(t)
`(u) $150,000 for willful infringement of Lucidity;21
`(v) $150,000 for willful infringement of One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First
`Year at Harvard Law School;22
`(w) $150,000 for willful infringement of Carnal Curiosity;23
`(x) $150,000 for willful infringement of Chiefs: A Novel;24
`(y) $150,000 for willful infringement of Collateral Damage;25
`(z) $150,000 for willful infringement of Cut and Thrust;26
`(aa) $150,000 for willful infringement of D.C. Dead;27
`(bb) $150,000 for willful infringement of Foreign Affairs;28
`(cc) $150,000 for willful infringement of Hothouse Orchid;29
`(dd) $150,000 for willful infringement of Insatiable Appetites;30
`(ee) $150,000 for willful infringement of Iron Orchid;31
`(ff) $150,000 for willful infringement of Orchid Beach;32
`(gg) $150,000 for willful infringement of Orchid Blues,33
`(hh) $150,000 for willful infringement of Palindrome;34
`
`
`17 Registration Nos. TX0007970793; TX0007970795.
`18 Registration No. TX0008229466.
`19 Registration No. TX0006942463.
`20 Registration No. TX0007754956.
`21 Registration No. TX0007610805.
`22 Registration No. TX0002573137.
`23 Registration No. TX0007909225.
`24 Registration No. TX0000719822.
`25 Registration No. TX0007684917.
`26 Registration No. TX0007943843.
`27 Registration No. TX0007478430.
`28 Registration No. TX0008233410.
`29 Registration No. TX0007056077.
`30 Registration No. TX0008027684.
`31 Registration No. TX0006295537.
`32 Registration No. TX0004894963.
`33 Registration No. TX0005465649.
`34 Registration No. TX0003038167.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`(ii) $150,000 for willful infringement of Santa Fe Dead;35
`(jj) $150,000 for willful infringement of Santa Fe Edge;36
`(kk) $150,000 for willful infringement of Santa Fe Rules;37
`(ll) $150,000 for willful infringement of Shoot Him If He Runs;38
`(mm) $150,000 for willful infringement of Two Dollar Bill;39
`(nn) $150,000 for willful infringement of Unintended Consequences;40
`(oo) $150,000 for willful infringement of Unnatural Acts;41
`(pp) $150,000 for willful infringement of Swimming to Catalina;42
`(qq) $150,000 for willful infringement of Dead eyes;43
`(rr) $150,000 for willful infringement of Dead in the Water: A Novel;44
`(ss) $150,000 for willful infringement of Bitter in the Mouth;45
`(tt) $150,000 for willful infringement of Gray Mountain: A Novel;46
`(uu) $150,000 for willful infringement of Rogue Lawyer;47
`(vv) $150,000 for willful infringement of Sycamore Row;48
`(ww) $150,000 for willful infringement of Theodore Boone: The Abduction;49
`(xx) $150,000 for willful infringement of Theodore Boone: The Accused;50
`(yy) $150,000 for willful infringement of Theodore Boone: The Fugitive;51 and
`(zz) $150,000 for willful infringement of Jennie.52
`
`
`
`
`35 Registration No. TX0007172693.
`36 Registration No. TX0007328233.
`37 Registration No. TX0003367425.
`38 Registration No. TX0006903331.
`39 Registration No. TX0006164181.
`40 Registration No. TX0007739500.
`41 Registration No. TX0007529029.
`42 Registration No. TX0004751854.
`43 Registration No. TX0003864784.
`44 Registration No. TX0004579095.
`45 Registration No. TX0007299541.
`46 Registration No. TX0007964170.
`47 Registration No. TX0008229453.
`48 Registration Nos. TX0007791381; TX0007963390.
`49 Registration No. TX0007413142.
`50 Registration No. TX0007558149.
`51 Registration No. TX0008293865.
`52 Registration No. TX0003921292.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`The Court directs the Clerk to enter Judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of
`
`$7,800,000 against the Defendants, jointly and severally.
`
`E.
`
`Injunctive Relief
`
`The Court finds it appropriate to enter a permanent injunction against Defendants.
`
`“As a general rule, a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been
`
`established and there is a threat of continuing violations.” MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer,
`
`Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993). And under the Copyright Act the Court may “grant
`
`temporary and final injunctions on such terms at it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain
`
`infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). A plaintiff seeking permanent injunctive relief
`
`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 finds that all four eBay factors favor entry of a permanent injunction. First,
`
`based on the admitted allegations in the Complaint, Defendants’ copyright infringement has
`
`caused irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ goodwill, reputation, and distribution efforts particularly
`
`by disrupting Plaintiffs’ control over the sale of their works. Second, Plaintiffs have shown that
`
`monetary damages alone will not prevent Defendants from engaging in further abusive conduct.
`
`Given Defendants’ decision not to appear in this case and their pattern of deception and evasion,
`
`there can be no assurances that Defendants will no longer engage in the conduct at issue in this
`
`case. This satisfies the Court that monetary damages alone are insufficient. Third, the equities
`
`favor Plaintiffs, who merely seek to enjoin Defendants from engaging in illegal conduct that
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`benefits only Defendants. This favors Plaintiffs and the requested injunction. Fourth, an
`
`injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further conduct that misleads and defrauds
`
`consumers and infringes on the rights of copyright holders will serve the public interest. The
`
`Court GRANTS the Motion and ENTERS the following PERMANENT INJUNCTION against
`
`Defendants Kiss Library, Rodion Vynnychenko, and Artem Besshapochny, and their agents,53
`
`servants, employees, confederates, and any persons acting in concert or participation with them
`
`and hereby permanently ENJOINS AND RESTRAINS them from:
`
`(a)
`
`Directly infringing Plaintiffs’ works by reproducing, displaying, distributing,
`
`offering for sale, or selling Plaintiffs’ Works;
`
`(b)
`
`Inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`Works;
`
`(c) Moving, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any items, merchandise, assets, or
`
`other documents related to Defendants’ reproduction, distribution, or sale of Plaintiffs’
`
`Works on any of Defendants’ Websites,54 including Defendants’ profits linked to sales
`
`of copyrighted works through their associated websites or operations;
`
`(d)
`
`Removing, destroying or otherwise disposing of any computer files, electronic
`
`files, business records, or documents relating to Defendants’ websites, assets, or
`
`
`53 Defendants’ agents expressly include any person operating the email addresses roddiku@gmail.com,
`sofleadecen1987@mail.ru, kmytz@yandex.ru, redoxyzo@gmail.com, jjpetruninas@gmail.com,
`robert.teifeld@gmail.com, ikmytz@gmail.com, hellodorld@protonmail.com, nyakambinnickson@gmail.com,
`ravawebsite@gmail.com, tema@xpdf.bid, hgurm80@gmail.com, amankwavictoria11@gmail.com,
`besshapochnyy@mail.ru, and dmitriy.chernyay@gmail.com, in furtherance of the scheme.
`54 Defendants’ associated websites include Kisslibrary.com, Kisslibraryemails.com, Kisslibrary.net, Kissly.net,
`Wtffastspring.bid, Libly.net, Cheap-library.com, Books.coffee, Getebooks.net, Booksgreatchoice.com,
`Maximumbook.org, Bsebooks.com, Bookspc.com, Crucialbooks.com, Osebooks.com, Wordered.com,
`Thekissly.net, Kisslibraryemails.net, Quabook.com, Luckybooks.online, KissAnime.com, Torrentsmoviesfree.com,
`KissAnime.ru, KissManga.com, Xpdf.bid, Bookpdfs.com, 2pdfs.com, Smashbook.site, Cybook.club, Oregano.pro,
`Dexcom.pro, Lumeo.pro, Keyhunter.pro, Zenlibrary.top, and Lumintu.club.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`operations, which relate in any way to the reproduction, distribution, or sale of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted Works;
`
`(e)
`
`Registering, maintaining, servicing, hosting, or using any website domains or
`
`mobile application programs in furtherance of a scheme to infringe Plaintiffs’ Works or
`
`other copyrighted works; and
`
`(f)
`
`Knowingly and materially assisting any other person or business entity in
`
`engaging in or performing any of the activities listed above.
`
`The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case for the purpose of enforcing this Order
`
`and Permanent Injunction.
`
`F.
`
`Overlength Motion
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion of 24 pages exceeds the 6-page limit set by the Local Rules. See Local
`
`Rule 7(e)(1). Although Plaintiffs failed to move for relief from the six-page limit, the Court
`
`accepts the Motion and has considered its full content. The Court reminds Plaintiffs to carefully
`
`review the Local Rules to ensure that any future filings comply with the page limits.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an entry of default judgment and permanent
`
`injunction in their favor. The Court therefore: (1) GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion; (2) ENTERS
`
`DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Defendants in Plaintiffs’ favor; (3) AWARDS Plaintiffs
`
`$7,800,000 in statutory damages against Defendants; and (4) ENTERS a PERMANENT
`
`INJUNCTION against Defendants and their agents, etc. on the terms set forth above.
`
`The Court directs the Clerk to enter Judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of
`
`$7,800,000 against the Defendants, jointly and severally. The Court further directs the Clerk to
`
`return to Plaintiffs the bond posted to secure the Preliminary Injunction.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01048-MJP Document 41 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`The Court directs Plaintiffs’ counsel to serve a copy of this Order and Default Judgment
`
`on Defendants at the last email or physical address(es) they received service. And the Clerk is
`
`ordered to provide copies of this Order to all counsel.
`
`Dated December 17, 2021.
`
`A
`
`Marsha J. Pechman
`United States Senior District Judge
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`