United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.; VENICE PI, LLC; LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs
TRAVIS PAGADUAN, Defendant,
ORDER MODIFYING AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT TRAVIS PAGADUAN
Oki Mollway United States District Judge
a copyright infringement action brought by three separate
plaintiffs against Defendant Travis Pagaduan for infringing
conduct with respect to three different movies. Plaintiff ME2
Productions, Inc., alleges that Pagaduan pirated
“Mechanic: Resurrection” via BitTorrent.
Plaintiff Venice PI, LLC, alleges that Pagaduan pirated
“Once Upon a Time in Venice” via BitTorrent. LHF
Productions, Inc., alleges that Pagaduan pirated
“London Has Fallen” via BitTorrent.
has been entered against Pagaduan, and Plaintiffs have moved
for default judgment. On December 29, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge issued his Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part
and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment
(“F&R”), ECF No. 42. The F&R recommended
that: (1) default judgment be entered in favor of each
respective Plaintiff and against Pagaduan; (2) Pagaduan be
ordered to delete or destroy any and all illegal copies of
“Mechanic: Resurrection, ” “Once Upon a
Time in Venice, ” and “London Has Fallen;”
(3) Pagaduan be permanently enjoined from downloading any of
the three movies via BitTorrent or in any other manner
infringing on Plaintiffs' respective copyrights; (4)
statutory damages of $750 be awarded to each of the three
Plaintiffs, for a total statutory damages award of $2, 250;
(5) attorney's fees of $875 be awarded; and (6) costs of
$270 be awarded.
party objected to the F&R. Nevertheless, in reviewing the
F&R, this court became concerned that LHF Productions had
already sued and received a judgment against Pagaduan with
respect to copyright infringement claims for identical
conduct two days before the conduct at issue in this case.
The court therefore issued an Order to Show Cause why those
claims should not be dismissed based on issue and/or claim
preclusion. See ECF No. 44. During arguments at the
show cause hearing of February 20, 2018, this court continued
to question whether LHF Productions' claims were barred
by claim preclusion. The court did not rule at the hearing,
instead taking the matter under advisement. The day after the
hearing, LHF Productions voluntarily dismissed its claims
against Pagaduan. See ECF No. 47. This court
therefore modifies the F&R to remove any recommended
award to LHF Productions. The court adopts the remainder of
the F&R as modified.
district judge reviews de novo those portions of a
magistrate judge's findings and recommendation to which
an objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendation made by the
magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b); Local Rule 74.2. Kealoha v. Totto, 2017 WL
1839280, *2 (D. Haw. May 8, 2017); Paco v. Meyers,
2013 WL 6843057, *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 26, 2013). In other words,
a district judge “review[s] the matter anew, the same
as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision
previously had been rendered.” Freeman v. DirectTV,
Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2006).
While the district judge must arrive at independent
conclusions about those portions of the magistrate
judge's report to which objections are made, a de
novo hearing is not required. United States v.
Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989);
Kealoha, 2017 WL 1839280, *2; Local Rule 74.2.
district judge may accept those portions of the findings and
recommendation that are not objected to if the district judge
is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the
record. United States v. Bright, 2009 WL 5064355, *3
(D. Haw. Dec. 23, 2009); Stow v. Murashige, 288
F.Supp.2d 1122, 1127 (D. Haw. 2003). The district judge may
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The district judge may also consider the record
developed before the magistrate judge. Local Rule 74.2.
the dismissal of LHF Productions' claims against
Pagaduan, the court modifies the F&R by removing any
award in favor of LHF Productions, including any
attorney's fee award. With that modification, the court
adopts the remainder of the F&R, ruling as follows:
default judgment is granted against Pagaduan and in favor of
Plaintiffs ME2 and Venice.
Pagaduan is ordered to delete or destroy any and all illegal
copies of “Mechanic: Resurrection” and
“Once Upon a Time in Venice” that he has in his
possession or that he has control over.
Pagaduan is permanently enjoined from downloading or offering
to others “Mechanic: Resurrection” and/or
“Once Upon a Time in Venice” via BitTorrent or in
any other manner infringing on ME2's or Venice's
statutory damages of $750 each are awarded to ME2 and Venice,
for a total ...