Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`BUNGIE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01114-TL
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MIHAI CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN, an
`individual, d/b/a
`VETERANCHEATS.COM, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR
`DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
`DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-
`FLORENTIN
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bungie, Inc.’s Motion for Default
`
`Judgment against Defendant Mihai Claudiu-Florentin. Dkt. Nos. 37 (sealed), 38 (public). Having
`
`reviewed the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part, ENTERS default judgment, and
`
`PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Claudiu-Florentin on the terms specified below.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Operating out of Bellevue, Washington, Bungie develops, distributes, and owns the
`
`intellectual property rights to a video game called “Destiny 2.” Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 1, 8. Bungie
`
`alleges that Claudiu-Florentin, a resident of Romania, developed and sold cheat software that
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`“hacks” the Destiny 2 software to allow players a competitive advantage against other players in
`
`violation of Bungie’s software license agreement (“LSLA”). Id. ¶¶ 3–4. Claudiu-Florentin used
`
`his website, Veterancheats.com, to market and sell the hack.1 Id. ¶¶ 33–37. Bungie alleges that
`
`the VeteranCheats Hack infringes on four copyrights: (1) Destiny 2 code (a literary work),
`
`registration No. TX 8-933-655; (2) Destiny 2: Beyond Light (a literary work) registration No.
`
`TX 8-933-658; (3) Destiny 2 (audiovisual work) registration PA 2-282-670; and (4) Destiny 2:
`
`Beyond Light (audiovisual work) registration PA 2-280-030. Id. ¶ 21. Bungie also alleges that
`
`Claudiu-Florentin has used copyrighted imagery from Destiny 2 to sell the VeteranCheats Hack
`
`without Bungie’s authorization. Id. ¶ 44. And Bungie alleges that the VeteranCheats Hack
`
`breaches the LSLA and contains measures intended to avoid, bypass, and impair Bungie’s
`
`technological measures that control access to the copyrighted works at issue in this case.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 48–49.
`
`Bungie asserts the following claims against Claudiu-Florentin: (1) copyright
`
`infringement; (2) violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”); (3) breach of
`
`contract; (4) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (5) violations of the
`
`Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). Id. ¶¶ 53–102. Bungie seeks entry of default
`
`judgment on all claims, asking for judgment to be entered in the amount of $12,059,912.98. This
`
`represents the sum of: (1) $11,696,000 in statutory damages under the DMCA; (2) $146,662.28
`
`in actual damages for copyright infringement; and (3) $217,250.70 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`Bungie also asks for entry of a permanent injunction barring Claudiu-Florentin from engaging in
`
`future or further conduct that forms the basis of its Copyright Act and DMCA claims in this
`
`action.
`
`
`1 The Court refers to Claudiu-Florentin’s hack as the VeteranCheats Hack.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Bungie alleges that notwithstanding its anti-cheating efforts, the VeteranCheats Hack has
`
`caused it harm by diminishing the enjoyment of the game for those not cheating and reducing its
`
`potential revenue from in-game sales to players. Id. ¶¶ 29–32, 42, 49–51. Bungie’s Deputy
`
`General Counsel, James Barker, also explains the nature of its anti-cheat circumvention efforts
`
`and the “minimum of $2,000,000 on game security staffing and software” that it has expended to
`
`combat the VeteranCheats Hack and other cheating devices of Destiny 2. Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶¶ 1, 6,
`
`10, 17–25, 36. Through a subpoena of Stripe, Inc., Bungie obtained transactional data associated
`
`with VeteranCheats which Barker avers shows 5,848 separate transactions of the VeteranCheats
`
`Hack that produced $146,662.28 in sales revenue to Claudiu-Florentin from November 2020 to
`
`July 2022. Id. ¶ 33.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Court has already found Claudiu-Florentin in default. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 29. After
`
`entry of default, the Court may enter a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). This
`
`determination is discretionary. See Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392
`
`(9th Cir. 1988). “Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the
`
`entry of a default judgment include: (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.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th
`
`Cir. 1986). In performing this analysis, “the general rule is that well-pled allegations in the
`
`complaint regarding liability are deemed true.” Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`(9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). And “[t]he district court is not required to make
`
`detailed findings of fact.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`Before entering default judgment, the Court must assure itself that it has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
`
`There is little doubt that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Bungie’s claims.
`
`Bungie brings claims under various federal laws, which fall within the Court’s original
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The Court has supplemental
`
`jurisdiction over Bungie’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`The Court also finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Claudiu-Florentin. A valid
`
`contractual forum selection clause to which a defendant has consented may satisfy personal
`
`jurisdiction. See Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 458 (9th Cir.
`
`2007) (noting that a forum selection clause may give rise to a waiver of objection provided the
`
`defendant agreed to be bound). Bungie has provided evidence that Claudiu-Florentin agreed to
`
`the terms of Bungie’s LSLA, which required Claudiu-Florentin to “agree to submit to the
`
`personal jurisdiction of any federal or state court in King County, Washington.” Dkt.
`
`No. 18 ¶ 13. The Court accepts as true that Claudiu-Florentin agreed to these terms, given the
`
`well-pleaded allegations in the Amended Complaint. And the additional evidence submitted
`
`strongly suggests that Claudiu-Florentin had to have agreed to the LSLA in order to develop and
`
`refine the VeteranCheats Hack. Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶¶ 18–19.
`
`C.
`
`Eitel Factors Favor Default Judgment
`
`The Court reviews the Eitel factors to assess whether default judgment should be entered
`
`and in what specific amounts. The seven Eitel factors weigh in favor of entry of default judgment
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`in Bungie’s favor. But the Court finds that the judgment shall not be entered as to all claims or in
`
`the full amount Bungie requests.
`
`1.
`
`Factor One: Prejudice to Bungie
`
`Without entry of default judgment Bungie will be prejudiced. Bungie has attempted to
`
`litigate this case and vindicate its rights under federal and state law against Claudiu-Florentin.
`
`Claudiu-Florentin has failed to appear or participate in this litigation despite being personally
`
`served. Bungie faces prejudice by not being able to obtain complete relief on its claims against
`
`Claudiu-Florentin without entry of default judgment. This factor weighs in favor of granting
`
`default judgment.
`
`2.
`
`Factors Two and Three: Merits of Bungie’s Claims and Sufficiency of
`Complaint
`
`Bungie has demonstrated the merit of its claims and the sufficiency of the amended
`
`complaint as to all but the CPA claim. The Court reviews each claim.
`
`a.
`
`Copyright Infringement
`
`“To establish direct copyright infringement, the [plaintiff] must (1) show ownership of
`
`the allegedly infringed material and (2) demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least
`
`one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Disney Enters., Inc. v.
`
`VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation omitted). “To prove
`
`‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually
`
`aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant's actions were the result of ‘reckless
`
`disregard’ for, or ‘willful blindness’ to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Louis Vuitton Malletier,
`
`S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted).
`
`Bungie has sufficiently alleged a meritorious claim of willful copyright infringement.
`
`Bungie has identified four copyright registrations for Destiny 2 both as an audiovisual work and
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`as software, establishing its ownership. Dkt. No. 18 ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 38-2 at 2–10. Bungie has
`
`alleged and provided evidence that Claudiu-Florentin helped develop the VeteranCheats Hack
`
`which directly infringed on Bungie’s copyrighted works in a variety of ways. Dkt. No. 18
`
`¶¶ 33–41; Dkt. No. 38-16 at 2–9. And Bungie has provided cogent allegations and additional
`
`evidence that Claudiu-Florentin’s infringement was willful. Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 60, 68, 78; Dkt.
`
`No. 38-9 at 2–5; Dkt. No. 38-16 at 2–9.
`
`The Court finds that entry of default judgment on these claims is proper.
`
`b.
`
`The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of any technological measure that effectively
`
`controls access to a protected work and grants copyright owners the right to enforce that
`
`prohibition. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a). Bungie may prove its claim under § 1201 by demonstrating
`
`that Claudiu-Florentin: “(1) traffic[ked] in (2) a technology or part thereof (3) that is primarily
`
`designed, produced, or marketed for, or has limited commercially significant use other than
`
`(4) circumventing a technological measure (5) that effectively controls access (6) to a
`
`copyrighted work.” MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 953 (9th Cir. 2010), as
`
`amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g,
`
`No. 09-15932, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011). Here, Bungie has provided allegations
`
`and evidence that Claudiu-Florentin developed and designed the VeteranCheats Hack to
`
`circumvent Bungie’s technological measures to protect its copyrighted works in violation of
`
`§ 1201(a). Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 33–41, 48–49; Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶¶ 1, 6, 10, 17–25, 36; Dkt. No. 38-9
`
`at 2–5; Dkt. No. 38-16 at 2–9. Claudiu-Florentin used the VeteranCheats Hack to bypass
`
`Bungie’s control features and sell his product to the public at large. See Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶¶ 26–27,
`
`31–33, Dkt. No. 38-6; Dkt. No. 38-7 ¶¶ 9–10; Dkt. Nos. 38-13–38-16. The Court finds that entry
`
`of default judgment on these claims is proper.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Breach of Contract and Intentional Interference with Contractual
`Relationship
`
`To prove a breach of contract, Bungie must demonstrate that the “contract imposes a
`
`duty, the duty is breached, and the breach proximately causes damage to” it. See Nw. Indep.
`
`Forest Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 78 Wn. App. 707, 712 (1995). “A claim for tortious
`
`interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy requires five elements: (1) the
`
`existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) that defendants had
`
`knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or
`
`termination of the relationship or expectancy; (4) that defendants interfered for an improper
`
`purpose or used improper means; and (5) resultant damage.” Leingang v. Pierce Cnty. Med.
`
`Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 157 (1997). “Intentional interference requires an improper
`
`objective or the use of wrongful means that in fact cause injury to the person’s contractual
`
`relationship.” Id.
`
`Bungie has provided sufficient allegations and evidence that Claudiu-Florentin breached
`
`the terms of the LSLA and tortiously interfered with Bungie’s contractual relationship with other
`
`users of Destiny 2. Bungie has shown that Claudiu-Florentin violated the terms of the LSLA by
`
`accessing Destiny 2 and the underlying software to create the VeteranCheats Hack. See Dkt.
`
`No. 38-1 ¶¶ 26–31. And by selling the VeteranCheats Hack to other users of Destiny 2,
`
`Claudiu-Florentin induced other users to violate the terms of the LSLA and interfere with
`
`Bungie’s control of Destiny 2 and the gaming environment through which it intended to generate
`
`revenue. And Bungie has shown that it suffered damages through this conduct by losing out on
`
`in-game revenue and expending substantial sums to combat the VeteranCheats Hack. See Dkt.
`
`No. 38-1 ¶¶ 32–37. The Court finds that entry of default judgment on these claims is proper.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`d.
`
`CPA
`
`To prevail on its CPA claim, Bungie must establish “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or
`
`practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a
`
`person’s business or property, and (5) causation.” Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166
`
`Wn.2d 27, 37 (2009) (citing Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105
`
`Wn.2d 778, 784 (1986)). “[A] claim under the Washington CPA may be predicated upon a per se
`
`violation of statute, an act or practice that has the capacity to deceive substantial portions of the
`
`public, or an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of public
`
`interest.” Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771, 787 (2013).
`
`The Court remains unconvinced that Bungie has alleged a valid CPA claim. Specifically,
`
`it has not provided evidence of an unfair or deceptive act that had the capacity to deceive a
`
`substantial portion of the public. Bungie itself alleges that the VeteranCheats Hack cheat was
`
`developed and sold as an express means to allow players to cheat in the Destiny 2 game. Dkt.
`
`No. 18 ¶ 3. There are no cogent allegations or evidence that individuals who purchased the
`
`VeteranCheats Hack cheat were deceived or that they did not intend to purchase a cheat-enabling
`
`software. Bungie suggests that Claudiu-Florentin deceived consumers by charging “high prices”
`
`for the cheat. Dkt. No. 38 at 17. But Bungie provides no evidence that the price was unfair or
`
`deceptive. Even if it was, this conduct did not cause any damage or injury to Bungie. The Court
`
`rejects Bungie’s request for entry of default judgment on this claim.
`
`3.
`
`Factor Four: Sum of Money at Stake
`
`Given the substantial sums that are at stake and the seriousness of the alleged
`
`misconduct, the Court finds that this Eitel factor favors entry of default judgment.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Factor Five: Possibility of Dispute of Material Facts
`
`The Court finds little possibility that the core, material facts are in dispute. Not only has
`
`Claudiu-Florentin failed to appear in this action, but Bungie has provided detailed evidence in
`
`support of its claims that is likely difficult to be rebutted. This factor favors entry of default
`
`judgment.
`
`5.
`
`Factor Six: Whether Default is Due to Excusable Neglect
`
`There is no evidence that Claudiu-Florentin’s failure to appear is due to excusable
`
`neglect. Evidence submitted by counsel shows that Claudiu-Florentin is aware of this action and
`
`has chosen not to participate. See Dkt. No. 38-9 at 2–5. This factor favors entry of default
`
`judgment.
`
`6.
`
`Factor Seven; Strong Policy in Favor of Decision on the Merits
`
`The Court maintains a strong policy preference in favor of resolution of Bungie’s claims
`
`on the merits. But Claudiu-Florentin’s decision not to appear in this case vitiates against this
`
`policy. This factor weighs in favor of entry of default judgment.
`
`Having considered and balanced the Eitel factors, the Court finds that entry of default
`
`judgment is proper on all but the CPA claim. On this basis, the Court GRANTS in part Bungie’s
`
`Motion for Default Judgment.
`
`D.
`
`Amount of the Default Judgment
`
`Bungie asks the Court to award it: (1) $11,696,000 in statutory damages under the
`
`DMCA; (2) $146,662.28 in actual damages related to its copyright claims; and (3) $217,250.70
`
`in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court agrees.
`
`First, Bungie is entitled to statutory damages for Claudiu-Florentin’s violations of the
`
`DMCA. Under the Act, the Court may award statutory damages “in the sum of not less than
`
`$200 or more than $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`performance of service, as the court considers just.” 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3). Based on the
`
`allegations in the amended complaint and the evidence provided, the Court is satisfied that
`
`Claudiu-Florentin’s violations of the DMCA were willful and that an award of up to $2,500 per
`
`download of the VeteranCheats Hack is “just.” See, e.g., Sony Computer Ent. Am., Inc. v.
`
`Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that an award of $2,500 for the
`
`willful sale of copyright infringing devices). Bungie has asked for only $2,000 for each of the
`
`5,848 downloads of the VeteranCheats Hack and the Court finds that this amount is appropriate.
`
`The Court will therefore enter default judgment in the amount of $11,696,000 for
`
`Claudiu-Florentin’s violations of the DMCA.
`
`Second, Bungie is entitled to recovery of actual damages for its Copyright Act claim.
`
`See 17 U.S.C. § 504. Bungie seeks to recover what it claims to be Claudiu-Florentin’s profits
`
`from the copyright infringement as permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Bungie has provided
`
`sufficient evidence to support this request, including accounting information from Stripe, as well
`
`as Barker’s declaration which explains the basis for the calculation. Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 33; Dkt.
`
`No. 38-6; Dkt. No. 38-7 ¶¶ 8-9.) The Court therefore awards $146,662.28 in actual damages for
`
`the Copyright Act claim.
`
`Third, Bungie is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees and costs are recoverable under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 505. “In deciding
`
`whether to award attorneys’ fees, courts in this Circuit consider certain factors, including (1) the
`
`degree of success obtained; [ (2) ] frivolousness; [ (3) ] motivation; [ (4) ] objective
`
`unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal arguments in the case); and [ (5) ] the need in
`
`particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Halicki
`
`Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg., 547 F.3d 1213, 1230 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation and
`
`citation omitted). Here, the Court finds that all five factors favor an award of attorneys’ fees and
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`costs. And it finds the requested amounts to be reasonable. The Court therefore approves the
`
`award of $217,250.70 in attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 37.
`
`In total, the Court directs entry of default judgment in the amount of $12,059,912.98.
`
`E.
`
`Injunctive Relief
`
`The Court finds it appropriate to enter a permanent injunction against Claudiu-Florentin
`
`on the majority of the terms Bungie requests. The Court notes that Bungie has requested an
`
`injunction that extends to its software beyond Destiny 2 and includes broad language about its
`
`affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries. The Court has limited the injunction to the Destiny 2 game,
`
`which is the sole game at issue with regard to Bungie’s Copyright Act and DMCA claims. And
`
`the Court has limited the injunction to Bungie rather than any subsidiaries, parents, and affiliates,
`
`given that this action was brought solely by Bungie, Inc. and no other entities.
`
`“As a general rule, a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been
`
`established and there is a threat of continuing violations.” MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer,
`
`Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993). And under the Copyright Act the Court may “grant
`
`temporary and final injunctions on such terms at it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain
`
`infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). A plaintiff seeking permanent injunctive relief
`
`must demonstrate: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at
`
`law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,
`
`considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
`
`warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”
`
`eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
`
`The Court finds that all four eBay factors favor entry of a permanent injunction. First,
`
`based on the admitted allegations in the amended complaint, Claudiu-Florentin’s copyright
`
`infringement has caused irreparable harm to Bungie’s goodwill and reputation and has caused it
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`to incur expenses to prevent further damage from cheat software. Second, Bungie has shown that
`
`monetary damages alone will not prevent Claudiu-Florentin from engaging in further abusive
`
`conduct. Given Claudiu-Florentin’s decision not to appear in this case, there can be no
`
`assurances that Claudiu-Florentin will no longer engage in the conduct at issue in this case. This
`
`satisfies the Court that monetary damages alone are insufficient. Third, the equities favor Bungie,
`
`who seeks to enjoin Claudiu-Florentin from engaging in illegal conduct that benefits only
`
`Claudiu-Florentin. This favors Bungie and the requested injunction. Fourth, an injunction
`
`prohibiting Claudiu-Florentin from engaging in further conduct that infringes on Bungie’s
`
`copyrights will serve the public interest. The Court GRANTS the Motion and ENTERS the
`
`following PERMANENT INJUNCTION against Claudiu-Florentin as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Claudiu-Florentin, all persons acting under Claudiu-Florentin’s direction or
`
`control (including but not limited to Claudiu-Florentin’s agents, representatives, and employees),
`
`and those persons or companies in active concert or participation with Claudiu-Florentin who
`
`receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, must immediately and
`
`permanently cease and desist from any of the following:
`
`a.
`
`Taking any steps on Claudiu-Florentin’s own behalf or assisting others in:
`
`(i) creating, distributing, advertising, marketing or otherwise making available; obtaining,
`
`possessing, accessing or using; promoting, advertising, or encouraging or inducing others to
`
`purchase or use (including via any social media account, website, or video-sharing account);
`
`(ii) selling, reselling, or processing payments for; (iii) assisting in any way with the development
`
`of; sharing, copying, transferring, or distributing; (iv) publishing or distributing any source code
`
`or instructional material for the creation of; (v) or operating, assisting, promoting or linking to
`
`any website designed to provide information to assist others in accessing, developing or
`
`obtaining: (A) the Destiny 2 Software Module, either alone, or in conjunction with the
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`Defendant’s Software; or (B) any software whose use infringes Intellectual Property owned or
`
`controlled by Bungie, circumvents technological measures that effectively control access to
`
`Destiny 2, violates Bungie’s licensing agreements, assists players of Destiny 2 in violating
`
`Bungie’s licensing agreements, or is designed to exploit or enable the exploitation of Destiny 2.
`
`b.
`
`Investing or holding any financial interest in any enterprise, product, or company
`
`which Claudiu-Florentin knows or has reason to know is now, or intends in the future to be,
`
`engaged in any of the foregoing activities prohibited by this Default Judgment and Permanent
`
`Injunction.
`
`c.
`
`Reverse engineering, decompiling, packet editing, or otherwise manipulating
`
`Destiny 2 without authorization, or providing any assistance to any person or entity engaged in
`
`such activities.
`
`2.
`
`The Court further enjoins Claudiu-Florentin and all third parties acting in concert
`
`and participation with Claudiu-Florentin, including but not limited to any domain name registrars
`
`or registries holding or listing any of Claudiu-Florentin’s websites or storefronts, from
`
`supporting or facilitating access to any and all domain names, URLs, and websites (including,
`
`but not limited to, insert sites), including any and all future and successor domain names, URLs,
`
`and websites, through which Claudiu-Florentin traffics circumvention devices that threaten
`
`Bungie’s technological protection measures or which infringe Bungie’s Intellectual Property
`
`rights identified in this action.
`
`3.
`
`Claudiu-Florentin is prohibited from using any social network, video sharing, or
`
`digital messaging accounts under their control (including, but not limited to, Facebook, groups or
`
`chats on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Tik Tok, Discord, GBATemp, Reddit, Telegram, Skype,
`
`WeChat, WhatsApp, Signal, or their equivalent) to provide any content relating to the
`
`distribution, marketing, offering for sale, or promotion of the Wallhax cheat software or any
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`other software whose use infringes any of Bungie’s Intellectual Property rights specified in this
`
`action, circumvents Bungie’s technological measures that effectively control access to Destiny 2,
`
`or violates (or assists players of Destiny 2 in violating) Bungie’s license agreements, and must
`
`take all necessary steps to remove any information on any non-dedicated (e.g., personal) social
`
`network accounts under Claudiu-Florentin’s control used to distribute or promote any of the
`
`foregoing.
`
`4.
`
`Claudiu-Florentin is further prohibited from engaging in any other violation of the
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Copyright Act, or any other federal or state law, with
`
`respect to Bungie and its intellectual property at issue in this action.
`
`5.
`
`Claudiu-Florentin must destroy the Destiny 2 Software Module or any software
`
`that in any way interacts with or pertains to Bungie’s Intellectual Property.
`
`6.
`
`This permanent injunction constitutes a binding court order, and any violations of
`
`this order by Claudiu-Florentin will subject them to the full scope of this Court’s contempt
`
`authority, including punitive, coercive, and monetary sanctions.
`
`7.
`
`Any company or entity that any of Claudiu-Florentin controls in the future will
`
`also comply with the provisions of this Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
`
`8.
`
`This permanent injunction is binding against Claudiu-Florentin worldwide,
`
`without regard to the territorial scope of the specific intellectual property rights asserted in the
`
`Amended Complaint and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction wherever
`
`Claudiu-Florentin or his assets may be found.
`
`9.
`
`Nothing contained in this Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction limits the
`
`right of the Bungie to seek relief, including without limitation damages, for any infringements of
`
`any Intellectual Property rights occurring after the date of this Judgment and Permanent
`
`Injunction.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01114-TL Document 43 Filed 04/26/23 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`10.
`
`The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this Default Judgment
`
`and Permanent Injunction and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the Court directs
`
`the entry of this Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction against Defendants.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court finds that default judgment is appropriately entered in Bungie’s favor as to all
`
`but the CPA claim. The Court finds that damages shall be entered in the amount of:
`
`(1) $11,696,000 for violations of the DMCA; (2) $146,662.28 for violations of the Copyright
`
`Act; and (3) $217,250.70 in attorneys’ fees and in costs. The total award shall be entered in the
`
`amount of $12,059,912.98. The Court also finds that entry of a permanent injunction on the
`
`terms specified above is appropriate and necessary. On these grounds, the Court GRANTS in part
`
`the Motion for Default Judgment, ENTERS default judgment, and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS
`
`Claudiu-Florentin on the terms specified above.
`
`Dated this 26th day of April 2023.
`
`Tana Lin
`A
`
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CLAUDIU-FLORENTIN - 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`