`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`MACON DIVISION
`
`5:06‐CV‐231 (CAR)
`
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`::
`
`:
`
`PRIORITY RECORDS LLC, a California
`limited liability company et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`FELTON LEE,
`
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`The present action stems from Defendant Felton Lee’s (“Defendant”) alleged
`
`unlawful acquisition and distribution of copyrighted recordings owned or licensed
`
`exclusively to Plaintiffs, in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.
`
`Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment [Doc. 6].
`
`Through the Motion, Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages, attorney’s costs, as
`
`well as an injunction barring Defendant from further infringement of their copyrights.
`
`After considering the present motion, the filed Complaint, the submitted evidence, and
`
`the relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiffs filed this copyright infringement action against Defendant on July 11,
`
`2006, alleging that they are the copyright owners or licensees of exclusive rights under
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 8
`
`United States copyright with respect to certain sound recordings, including the eleven
`
`copyrighted recordings listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint, and that Defendant copied
`
`and distributed those recordings with the help of an online media distribution system.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringing activity, Plaintiffs seek (1) statutory damages
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c); (2) attorney’s costs; and (3) injunctive relief pursuant to
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 502 & 503 prohibiting Defendant from further infringing conduct and
`
`requiring him to destroy all copies of sound recordings made in violation of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights.
`
`After filing the action, Plaintiffs properly served Defendant with a copy of the
`
`Summons and the Complaint on July 22, 2006. Notwithstanding the service of process
`
`in accordance with Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 Defendant never
`
`filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. Thereafter, because Defendant
`
`failed to respond and upon Plaintiffs’ motion, the Clerk of Court made an entry of
`
`default against Defendant [Doc. 5] pursuant to Rule 55(a). Fourteen days after Clerk’s
`
`entry of default, Plaintiffs filed the current motion asking the Court to enter a default
`
`judgment against Defendant pursuant to Rule 55(b).
`
`Discussion
`
`I. Propriety of Default Judgment
`
`1 In this Order, all references to “Rule(s)” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 8
`
`In this Circuit, it is well established that a “district court has the authority to
`
`enter default judgment for failure . . . to comply with . . . rules of procedure.” Wahl v.
`
`McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal citation omitted). Where a
`
`defendant, as here, fails to appear or otherwise acknowledge the pendency of a lawsuit
`
`against him for over two months such that the Clerk of Court enters an entry of default
`
`against him, Rule 55(b) allows this Court to enter a default judgment against him, as
`
`long as the defendant is not an infant nor an incompetent person. Vested with the
`
`power to do so, courts have entered default judgments against defendants who have
`
`failed to defend the claims against them following proper service of process. See, e.g.,
`
`In re Knight, 833 F.2d 1515, 1516 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[w]here a party offers no good reason
`
`for the late filing of its answer, entry of default judgment against that party is
`
`appropriate” (internal citation omitted); see also, Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Hall, 2006
`
`WL 2038649, at *1 (M.D. Ga. May 3, 2006) (entering default judgment against a
`
`defendant who failed to answer or otherwise make an appearance in a case).
`
`However, it is also well established that a defendant’s failure to appear in the
`
`case and the clerk’s entry of default against him does not automatically entitle a plaintiff
`
`to a default judgment. Notwithstanding the defendant’s default, a plaintiff is entitled to
`
`default judgment only if the court finds that the facts established in the plaintiff’s
`
`pleadings, which are deemed admitted by virtue of the plaintiff’s default, sufficiently
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 8
`
`establish a claim for relief. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (M.D.
`
`Ala. 2004) (quoting Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200,
`
`1206 (5th Cir. 1975)); see also Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1357 (S.D.
`
`Ga. 2004); Descent v. Kolitsidas, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1316 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (“[T]he
`
`defendants’ default notwithstanding, the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment only
`
`if the complaint states a claim for relief.”).
`
`After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint sufficiently states
`
`a cause of action for copyright infringement. To state a cause of action for copyright
`
`infringement, Plaintiffs must (a) establish ownership of the infringed material and (b)
`
`demonstrate that the alleged infringers violated at least one exclusive right granted to
`
`the copyright holders. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir.
`
`2001). In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the copyrighted
`
`recordings, which Defendant has, without their permission or consent, copied and
`
`distributed with the help of an online media distribution system. These allegations
`
`establish a quintessential copyright infringement claim. See Metro‐Goldwyn‐Mayer
`
`Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 922 (2005) (suggesting that downloading
`
`copyrighted recordings infringed upon copyright holder’s exclusive rights of
`
`production and distribution); see also Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prods.,
`
`Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 843 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Public distribution of a copyrighted work is a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 8
`
`right reserved to the copyright owner, and usurpation of that right constitutes
`
`infringement.”). Accordingly, because the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`sufficiently establishes Defendant’s liability to Plaintiffs on a theory of copyright
`
`infringement, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment and
`
`now turns its attention to the requested relief.
`
`II. Requested Relief
`
`A. Statutory Damages
`
`The Copyright Act gives a plaintiff a choice of receiving either actual or statutory
`
`damages for the infringing activity. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).2 If the plaintiff chooses to
`
`receive statutory damages, as Plaintiffs have done in this case, then he is entitled to at
`
`least $750.00 but no more than $30,000 for each act of infringement. Id. Although a
`
`court may, at its discretion, hold a hearing to determine the amount of damages, it need
`
`not do so “if the amount of damages is a liquidated sum, an amount capable of
`
`mathematical calculation, or an amount demonstrated by detailed affidavits.” Huynh,
`
`318 F. Supp. 2d at 1129. In this case, Plaintiffs have requested the minimum statutory
`
`damages. A hearing to determine the total amount of such damages would therefore be
`
`2 “[T]he copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to
`recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all
`infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a sum of not less than
`$750.00 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 8
`
`an exercise in futility as the Court must merely multiply the number of infringing works
`
`by the minimum statutory penalty of $750.00 to arrive at the appropriate amount of
`
`statutory damages in this case. See Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Lacey, 2007 WL
`
`177828, at *3‐*4 (S.D. Ala Jan. 23, 2007) (finding that an evidentiary hearing as to
`
`damages is unnecessary because plaintiffs sought minimum statutory damages).
`
`In support of the present motion, Plaintiffs show that Defendant downloaded
`
`and made available for distribution eleven of their copyrighted recordings: “She
`
`Swallowed It” recorded by NWA; “Go Your Own Way” recorded by Fleetwood Mac;
`
`“Downtown” recorded by SWV; “A Woman’s Worth” recorded by Alicia Keys;
`
`“Elevators (Me & You)” recorded by Outkast; “Outstanding” recorded by Gap Band;
`
`“Ride Wit Me” recorded by Nelly; “Stay” recorded by Destiny’s Child; “Make It Last
`
`Forever” recorded by Keith Sweat; “I Have Nothing” recorded by Whitney Houston;
`
`and “U Got It Bad” recorded by Usher. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiffs
`
`$8,250.00 in statutory damages, or $750.00 for each of the eleven copyrighted works that
`
`Defendant infringed.
`
`B. Costs
`
`In addition to statutory damages, Plaintiffs seek to recover costs that they
`
`incurred in bringing this action. 17 U.S.C. § 505 allows a court, in its discretion, to
`
`award such recovery. In this case, Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit of counsel
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 7 of 8
`
`stating that they have incurred $420.00 of costs in bringing this action. The Court
`
`considers $420.00 to be a reasonable amount of costs and therefore awards such to
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`C. Injunctive Relief
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs seek an injunction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) that
`
`specifically authorizes this Court to “grant temporary and final injunctions on such
`
`terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.”
`
`See S. Co., Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1499 n. 17 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Arista
`
`Records, Inc. v. Beker Enter., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (enjoining
`
`defendants from infringing on any of the copyrighted works owned by plaintiffs).
`
`Because the Court finds that Defendant’s past and current conduct has and will, unless
`
`enjoined, cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or
`
`measured in money, the Court finds that a permanent injunction is appropriate in this
`
`case.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for default
`
`judgment [Doc. 6] and ORDERS that the Court of Clerk enter final default judgment
`
`against Defendant providing as follows:
`
`(1) Defendant shall pay $8,250.00 in statutory damages and $420.00 in costs (for a
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:06-cv-00231-CAR Document 7 Filed 04/09/07 Page 8 of 8
`
`total of $8,670.00) to Plaintiffs.
`
`(2) Defendant is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs’ rights
`
`under federal or state law in the copyrighted recordings and any sound
`
`recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or controlled
`
`by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs),
`
`including by using the Internet or any online media distribution system to
`
`reproduce (i.e. download) any of Plaintiffs’ recordings, to distribute (i.e. upload)
`
`any of Plaintiffs’ recordings, or to make any of Plaintiffs’ Recordings available for
`
`distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express
`
`authority of Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant must destroy all copies of Plaintiffs’
`
`recordings that Defendant has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or
`
`server without Plaintiffs’ authorization and shall destroy all copies of those
`
`downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in
`
`Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`SO ORDERED, this 9th day of April, 2007.
`
`S/ C. Ashley Royal
`C. ASHLEY ROYAL
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`EHE/ssh
`
`8