United States District Court, D. Hawaii
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO PARTIALLY GRANT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
S.C. CHANG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC's (hereafter:
“Plaintiff”), Motion for Default Judgment Against
Defendant STANLEY SZERLIP (“Defendant”), filed
herein on June 8, 2017, [Doc. #48], having come on for
hearing before the Court, the Honorable Kevin S.C. Chang,
Magistrate Judge presiding, with Kerry S. Culpepper appearing
for Plaintiff and there being no appearance and no written
submission by or on behalf of the Defendant, the Court, after
full consideration of Plaintiff's motion and the entire
record herein, makes the following Findings and
an action for permanent injunctive relief and damages against
Defendant for copyright infringement in violation of the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 §§
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et. seq., 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Venue is proper in
this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a).
commenced this action by filing its Complaint on December 2,
2016 against eight Doe individuals including the Defendant.
Plaintiff ascertained the identity of the individual who
illegally downloaded and distributed the Plaintiff's
copyrighted movie Mr. Church (hereafter: the
“Work”) by subpoenaing Defendant's Internet
Service Provider, Hawaiian Telcom. [Doc. #24 ¶¶ 8,
Complaint was then amended to specifically identify
Defendant. [Id.] Plaintiff personally served the
Defendant with a summons on May 4, 2017 and filed the Proof
of Service. [Doc. #38]. Based upon the service date of May 4,
2017, Defendant's answer was due on May 25, 2017.
Defendant failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend,
Plaintiff filed a Rule 55(a) request for the entry of default
on May 26, 2017 [Doc. # 43]. The request was promptly granted
by the Court. [Doc. # 44].
is a California limited liability company that owns the
copyright for the motion picture in the Work under
registration number PA 2-002-851. [Doc. # 24, ¶ 29].
filed this action after discovering that Defendant had
illegally downloaded and copied the Work using the BitTorrent
protocol. [Id. ¶ ¶ 8 and 21].
is an interactive “peer-to-peer”
(“P2P”) file transfer technology protocol whereby
users can: (a) make media files (including entire movies)
stored on each user's computer available for copying by
other users or peers; (b) search for files that are stored on
other users' computers; and (c) transfer exact copies of
those files from one computer to another via the Internet.
[Id. ¶¶ 19 20-25].
is the Internet subscriber that was assigned and had the use
of the IP address 22.214.171.124 on October 19, 2016.
BitTorrent client application, Defendant illegally
republished and distributed copies of the Plaintiff's
copyrighted Work through the use of the unique hash number
SHA1: FB9EAB34A9CC31AABC73B4F560D4B6C49F3C856A to an unknown
number of other individuals over the Internet. Particularly,
Defendant illegally downloaded the Work on October 19, 2016
3:13 am UTC. [Doc. #24-1]. It is undisputed that his
infringement was willful and intentional.
distributed copies of his illegitimate copy of the Work at
least three times. [Doc. #24-4, item#6]. This contention is
actions contributed to the Work being among the most ten
pirated movies of the week of October 17, 2016, which was or
very near the week of Defendant's infringements. [Doc.
Complaint alleges claims for copyright infringements, in
violation of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
§ 101 et. seq., for distributing copies of
plaintiff asserting a copyright infringement claim must
demonstrate: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and
(2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are
original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282,
113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991); LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia
Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1156 ...