Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BROADCAST MUSIC INC. v. MOONSHINE GROUP LLC, CV-15-0363-PHX-DKD. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20151231664 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DAVID K. DUNCAN , Magistrate Judge . TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. Because only the Plaintiffs in this defaulted action have made an appearance and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, there is no consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction from any of the defaulted parties. Accordingly, the undersigned submits this Report and Recommendation to the Presiding
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. Because only the Plaintiffs in this defaulted action have made an appearance and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, there is no consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction from any of the defaulted parties. Accordingly, the undersigned submits this Report and Recommendation to the Presiding Phoenix District Judge wherein full jurisdiction lies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Based on the Court's review of Plaintiffs' Motion, the exhibits thereto, the record in this matter, the Clerk's entry of default, as well as Plaintiffs' December 2, 2015 Supplemental Memo which addressed the Court's concern regarding whether entry of judgment against the defaulted individual Defendants was appropriate (See Order at Doc. 26 and Plaintiffs' responsive Memo at Doc. 28), as well as the December 8, 2015 telephonic hearing which confirmed that Plaintiffs' counsel intended to bill and to be paid by his clients for the full amount of attorneys' fees requested, the undersigned concludes and thus recommends that Plaintiffs are entitled to Entry of Judgment as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, statutory damages in the amount of $28,000.00 ($4,000 per infringement for each of the seven willful copyright infringements committed by Defendants). 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).

2. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, $19,565.00 in attorneys' fees, as this amount as supported by Plaintiffs' counsel's Affidavit demonstrating that his hourly fee is consistent with the prevailing market rate and that the specific time entries were for tasks reasonably incurred. 17 U.S.C. § 505.

3. Plaintiffs shall have and recover from Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, jointly and severally, $875.60 in taxable costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505.

4. Plaintiffs shall have and recover statutory interest on all amounts herein, from the date of entry of this Judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

5. Moonshine Group LLC, Kristopher Aaron Michell, Benjamin Aaron Levine, and Lars S. Havens, and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from infringing, in any manner, the copyrighted musical compositions licensed by Broadcast Music, Inc. Information pertaining to said, licensed musical compositions can be found at www.bmi.com. 17 U.S.C. § 502.

6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction for purpose of enforcing this Judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 24).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer