Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inc. v. Pumaras

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 22, 2017

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
FERDINAND PUMARAS, ET AL., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PARTY AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FERDINAND PUMARAS

          RICHARD L. PUGLISI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiff ME2 Production, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Ferdinand Puamaras, filed on July 12, 2017 (“Motion”). ECF No. 32. The Court found the Motion suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. ECF No. 33. After careful consideration of the Motion, the declaration, exhibits, and the record established in this action, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations for direct copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., against Defendant Ferdinand Puamaras. ECF No. 20 ¶¶ 55-69. According to Plaintiff, Defendant, without Plaintiff's permission or consent, duplicated and distributed “Mechanic: Resurrection, ” a motion picture whose registered copyright is owned by Plaintiff. ECF No. 20 ¶¶ 7-54; ECF Nos. 20-1; 20-2; 20-3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform “Mechanic: Ressurection.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct has infringed Plaintiff's exclusive rights in “Mechanic: Resurrection” in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and (3)-(5). Id. ¶¶ 11-15. Through early discovery, Plaintiff has been able to identify the subscriber to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the IP address used on the date of the alleged infringement. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the subscriber at the IP address where the alleged infringement occurred “opened the account for the benefit of Defendant Ferdinand Pumaras.” Id. ¶ 12. Defendant was served on May 23, 2017. ECF No. 26. After Defendant failed to appear, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant on July 7, 2017. See ECF No. 31. The present Motion followed seeking default judgment, a permanent injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. ECF No. 32 at 2.

         ANALYSIS

         Default judgment may be entered for the plaintiff if the defendant has defaulted by failing to appear and the plaintiff's claim is for a “sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1), (2). The granting or denial of a motion for default judgment is within the discretion of the court. Haw. Carpenters' Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 511-12 (9th Cir. 1986). Entry of default does not entitle the non-defaulting party to a default judgment as a matter of right. Valley Oak Credit Union v. Villegas, 132 B.R. 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1991). Default judgments are ordinarily disfavored, and cases should be decided on their merits if reasonably possible. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). The court should consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant a motion for 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.

Id. at 1471-72.

         On default “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). The allegations in the complaint regarding liability are deemed true, but the plaintiff must establish the relief to which it is entitled. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). Also, “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.