Otherwise, the statutory damages Plaintiffs seek are within statutory limits and are not inherently unreasonable. See Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. Alhamedany, No. CV-19-0376-PHX-DMF, 2019 WL 4394885, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2019) (listing cases with similar damage awards), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV-19-00376-PHX-DMF, 2019 WL 4394533 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2019). The Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable and not disproportionate or inappropriate, and that the fourth Eitel factor weighs in favor of default judgment.

The Court finds that this amount is sufficient to deter for future acts by Defendants but not to destroy them and is comparable to other awards Plaintiff has received in similar circumstances.See, e.g., Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. Alhamedany, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157740, at *8-11 (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2019), report and recommendation adopted by 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156759 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2019) (awarding $10,000 in statutory damages and $20,000 in enhanced damages for a single § 605 violation); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garcia-Nunez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97488, at *6-8 (D. Or. June 11, 2019) (awarding $3,000 in statutory damages and $10,000 in enhanced damages for a single § 605 violation); Joe Hand Promotions v. Hashem, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207368, at *9-16 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 27, 2021) (awarding $3,700 in statutory damages and $9,250 in enhanced damages total for two § 605 violation); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Pacheco, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, at *12-14 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2019) (awarding $3,700 in statutory damages and $1,500 in enhanced damages for a single § 605 violation); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Chavez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106296, at * (D. Or. June 25, 2018) (awarding $10,000 in statutory damages and $10,000 in enhanced damages for a single § 605 violation); Joe