Opinion
For L.A. Gem & Jewelry Design, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiff: Milord A Keshishian, Milord and Associates PC, Los Angeles, CA.
Present: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST BLUSH JEWELRY, LLC [filed 5/11/15; Docket No. 42]
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff L.A. Gem & Jewelry Design, Inc. (" Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Default Judgment Against Blush Jewelry, LLC (" Motion"). Defendant Blush Jewelry, LLC (" Defendant") did not file an Opposition. On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for June 22, 2015 is hereby vacated and the matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) provides for a court ordered default judgment following entry of default under 55(a). Local Rule 55-1 requires that the application for default judgment be accompanied by a declaration that includes: (1) when and against what party default was entered; (2) the identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator or other representative; (4) that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply; and (5) that notice has been served on the defaulting party, if required. L.R. 55-1.
Entry of default is left to the court's sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Because granting or denying relief is entirely within the court's discretion, a defendant's default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a court ordered judgment. Id.; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003). In deciding whether to exercise discretion to enter a default judgment, courts may consider: (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 applying this discretionary standard, default judgments are more often granted than denied." PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
After default has been entered against a defendant, the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (" The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.") In determining damages, the court may conduct a full evidentiary hearing, or rely on declarations submitted by the parties. Fed. R. Civ. 55(b)(2); L.R. 55-2. However, " [a] default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c).
After considering the Eitel factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it is entitled to default judgment against Defendant. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to copyright statutory damages of $150,000, attorneys' fees of $6,600.00, $355.62 in recoverable costs, and post-judgment interest calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The Court also concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further infringement of Plaintiff's copyright.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, and the Court signs the Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, lodged with the Court on May 11, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.