From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Novak

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
May 4, 2007
Civil Action No. 06-5342 (FLW) (D.N.J. May. 4, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-5342 (FLW).

May 4, 2007


OPINION


Presently before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Arista Records LLC, UMG Recordings, Inc., BMG Music, and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, for default judgment on their claims against Defendant, Joseph Novak, for failure to appear or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint of November 8, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are the "copyright owners or licensees of exclusive rights under United States copyright with respect to certain copyrighted sound recordings. . . ." Plaintiffs' Compl. at ¶ 11. Upon Plaintiffs' information, Defendant "is an individual residing in this District." Id. at ¶ 9.

On November 8, 2006, Plaintiffs commenced this suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant infringed on Plaintiffs' copyrights, including but not limited to the following sound recordings: Copyright Owner Artist Recording Title Album Title SR#

Warner Bros. Records Leo Sayer When I Need You Endless Flight N37784 Inc. Arista Records LLC Kenny G Loving You Kenny G 263-707 Greatest Hits Warner Bros. Records Leo Sayer More Than I Can Living in a 22-022 Inc. Say Fantasy UMG Recordings, Inc. Mark I Do (Cherish You) Wish You Were 251-938 Wills Here Arista Records LLC Alan It's Alright to Be a When 289-367 Jackson Redneck Somebody Loves You BMG Music Kenny Don't Happen Greatest Hits 277-700 Chesney Twice Arista Records LLC Kenny G The Moment The Moment 236-228 Sony BMG Music Celine My Heart Will Go Let's Talk 248-109 Entertainment Dion On About Love Sony BMG Music Julio Can't Help Falling Starry Night 127-481 Entertainment Iglesias In Love Arista Records LLC Kenny G Summertime Classics In The 289-898 Key of G Plaintiffs' Compl. at Ex. A.

Defendant was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on December 13, 2006. Plaintiffs' Request Default at ¶ 2. Defendant failed to plead or otherwise appear. Confoy Decl. at ¶ 4. On January 31, 2007, Plaintiffs requested that the Clerk of the Court enter default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), and default was entered on February 1, 2007. Id. at ¶ 3; see also Plaintiffs' Appl. Default J. at ¶ 1. On February 8, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant has failed to appear and defend the claims against him and has likewise failed to oppose the instant Motion for Default Judgment.

II. STANDARD FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the entry of default judgment. To obtain a default judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), a litigant must first obtain an entry of default from the clerk of the court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Once this procedural hurdle has been met, it is within the discretion of this court whether to grant a motion for a default judgment. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000). Moreover, when a defendant is in default, the Court treats all pleadings and allegations of the plaintiff as true. See Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990). However, even after properly following the requirements of Rule 55, parties are not entitled to default judgment as of right and it is left to the "sound judicial discretion" of the Court. Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984). The court's discretion is "not without limits", however, as the preference is to dispose of cases on the merits whenever practicable. Id. at 1181 (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Plaintiffs' Compl. at ¶ 1. The facts plead in the Complaint concerning Defendant's actions regarding his infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive rights are sufficient to state a cause of action thereunder. Id. ¶¶ 11-17. Specifically, Plaintiffs have plead:

that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant's actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright [law].
Id. at ¶ 13.

a. Statutory Damages

Plaintiffs request money damages in the form of statutory damages in the amount of $7,500.00 for the ten infringements alleged in their Complaint pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiffs' Appl. Default J. at p. 3. Plaintiffs ask this Court to award the minimum statutory damages of $750.00 for each of Defendant's ten infringements. Id. Plaintiffs claim that courts "routinely award minimum statutory damages — or higher — as part of default judgments in copyright infringement cases." Id. at 4-5 (citing Ortiz-Gonzalez v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d 59, 63-64 (1st Cir. 2002); D.C. Comics Inc. v. Mini Gift Shop, 912 F.2d 29, 35, 37 (2d Cir. 1990); Morley Music Co. v. Dick Stacey's Plaza Motel, Inc., 725 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1983); Getaped.com, Inc. v. Cangemi, 188 F, Supp. 2d 398, 400-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2002);Microsoft Corp. v. Wen, 2001 WL 1456654, No. C 99-04561 MEJ, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2001); Perfect 10, Inc., v. Talisman Comm., Inc., 2000 WL 364813, No. CV99-10450 RAP MCx, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000)).

Further, Plaintiffs claim that "[b]ecause Plaintiffs here seek only the minimum statutory damages and those damages easily are ascertainable from the Complaint, no evidentiary hearing is necessary." Id. (citing Ortiz-Gonzalez, 277 F.3d at 63-64; D.C. Comics Inc., 912 F.2d at 34, 37; Morley Music Co., 725 F.2d at 2;O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien Assoc., Inc., 998 F.2d 1394, 1405 (7th Cir. 1993); Fustock v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d 1989); HMG Prop. Investors, Inc. v. Parque Indus. Rio Canas, Inc., 847 F.2d 908, 919 (1st Cir. 1988); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court agrees.

Here, the Court finds an award of $7,500.00, the minimum statutory award, to be appropriate and reasonable given Defendant's conduct and in light of his failure to appear or otherwise defend in this action.

b. Permanent Injunctive Relief

In addition to statutory damages, Plaintiffs request permanent injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from infringing on all of the "copyrighted sound recordings owned by Plaintiffs," including sound records created in the future. Plaintiffs' Appl. Default J. at p. 9. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a), courts may "grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 502(a).

Plaintiffs claim, and the Court agrees, that courts "routinely issue injunctions as part of default judgments." Plaintiffs' Appl. Default J. at 6-7 (citing Claremont Flock Corp. v. Alm, 281 F.3d 297 (1st Cir. 2002); Securities Exch. Comm'n v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Securities Exch. Comm'n v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 741 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 525 U.S. 931, 119 S. Ct. 340 (1998); CJC Holdings, Inc. V. Vv. Wright Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 64 (5th Cir. 1992); Sony Music Entm't. Inc. v. Global Arts Prod., 45 F.Supp.2d 1345-47 (S.D.Fla. 1999).

Further, Plaintiffs claim that "Defendant's conduct is causing irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money, and that they will continue to suffer such injury unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to infringe Plaintiffs' copyrights." Plaintiffs' Appl. Default J. at p. 7. Plaintiffs also note that "there is no evidence that Defendant has stopped infringing Plaintiffs' recordings or that, absent an injunction, Defendant would stop." Id. at p. 9. Moreover, according to Plaintiffs, "Defendant's failure to respond to the Complaint suggests that Defendant does not take seriously the illegality of the infringing activity," and therefore, "without an injunction, Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings would remain vulnerable to continued, repeated infringement." Id.

Here, the Court finds that a permanent injunction is appropriate and reasonable given Defendant's continuing infringement on Plaintiffs' sound recordings, and Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint.

c. Costs

Finally, Plaintiffs request $420.00 in costs of suit pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Id. at p. 3. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration setting forth the amount of costs incurred in prosecuting this action. Confoy Decl. at ¶ 6. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, in any civil action under the Copyright Act, "the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof." 17 U.S.C. § 505. This Court finds Plaintiffs' costs to be reasonable, and pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, Plaintiffs are entitled to such reasonable costs.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against Defendant is granted and Plaintiffs may recover the sum of $7,920.00, which includes $7,500.00 in statutory damages and $420.00 in costs. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief, and Defendant is enjoined from infringing on Plaintiffs' copyrighted and licensed sound recordings. An appropriate order will follow.


Summaries of

Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Novak

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
May 4, 2007
Civil Action No. 06-5342 (FLW) (D.N.J. May. 4, 2007)
Case details for

Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Novak

Case Details

Full title:WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: May 4, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-5342 (FLW) (D.N.J. May. 4, 2007)

Citing Cases

Mgmt Residential v. Reeves

Moreover, “courts ‘routinely issue injunctions as part of default judgments.'” Warner Bros. Records Inc. …

HB Prods. v. Faizan

Cook Prods., LLC v. Szerlip, Civil NO. 16-00637 HG-KSC, 2017 WL 6568001, at *5 (D. Haw. Aug. 25, 2017),…