{"cached_at":"2026-11-11T11:47:30.563802+00:00","cl_docket_id":"17390117","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","id":17390117,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cacd/","court_id":"cacd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/3507/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9063/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-07-28T16:01:36.133331-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-09T10:40:06.883285-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Stephen V. Wilson","referred_to_str":"Alka Sagar","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-02-26T09:36:02.121355-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2020-07-28","date_terminated":"2020-11-09","date_last_filing":"2021-01-20","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC","case_name_full":"","slug":"barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc","docket_number":"2:20-cv-06756","docket_number_core":"2006756","docket_number_raw":"2:20-cv-06756","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"SVW","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"AS","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"789744","cause":"17:101 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"820 Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2020-07-28T16:01:36.128736-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13400614/","id":13400614,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"1-10","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.415515-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.415527-08:00","name":"Does","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13400613/","id":13400613,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"an individual\nalso known as\nIgal M. Atelier\ndoing business as\nIgal M. Atelier","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.401762-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.401772-08:00","name":"Igal Moaz","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13400612/","id":13400612,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.388600-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.388609-08:00","name":"Invaluable, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13400611/","id":13400611,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9009390/","attorney_id":9009390,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9009390/","attorney_id":9009390,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9009391/","attorney_id":9009391,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9009391/","attorney_id":9009391,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","docket_id":17390117,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.306691-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.306701-08:00","name":"Barry Rosen","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454171/","id":379454171,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172570/","id":387172570,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/26/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.277539-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.285624-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.260401-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.264662-08:00","date_filed":"2021-01-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-01-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING NOTICE/IN CHAMBERS ORDER/TEST ONLY ENTRY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson re: MOTION for Contempt against Defendant, Invaluable, LLC filed by Barry Rosen - The hearing scheduled for 01/25/2021 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and off-calendar. The motion for contempt is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant failed to substantially comply with the injunction. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). The parties should either provide more specific notice to Defendant of the remaining infringing URLs or provide the Court with additional detail about the extent of Defendants compliance. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pc) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/20/2021)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454169/","id":379454169,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172568/","id":387172568,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/20/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.038367-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.046462-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.021062-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.024880-08:00","date_filed":"2020-11-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-11-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING NOTICE/IN CHAMBERS ORDER-TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson re: 19 MOTION for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff - The motion previously scheduled for November 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and off calendar. The motion is submitted. Order to issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tj) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/04/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454166/","id":379454166,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172565/","id":387172565,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/10/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.612475-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.620136-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033631841","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.594029-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.599186-08:00","date_filed":"2020-08-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-08-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":42,"description":"21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to defendants Invaluable, LLC, Igal Moaz. (mrgo) (Entered: 08/06/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454165/","id":379454165,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172564/","id":387172564,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/9/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.570120-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.578396-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033612897","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.547841-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.553903-08:00","date_filed":"2020-08-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":39,"description":"Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 08/04/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454164/","id":379454164,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172562/","id":387172562,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/7/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.467475-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.475983-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"7","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033580772","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.448450-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.453068-08:00","date_filed":"2020-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":7,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-07-30.004","pacer_sequence_number":35,"description":"NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Barry Rosen All Plaintiffs, (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 07/30/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454162/","id":379454162,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172561/","id":387172561,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/6/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.425219-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.434237-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"6","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033579800","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.407354-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.411479-08:00","date_filed":"2020-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":6,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-07-30.003","pacer_sequence_number":29,"description":"NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (car) (Entered: 07/30/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454161/","id":379454161,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172560/","id":387172560,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/4/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.337226-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.347930-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"4","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033579745","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.314359-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.318631-08:00","date_filed":"2020-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":4,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-07-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":25,"description":"NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (car) (Entered: 07/30/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379454159/","id":379454159,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387172558/","id":387172558,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/1/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.135872-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.145329-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"1","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033565710","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.110077-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.114277-08:00","date_filed":"2020-07-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":1,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-07-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":4,"description":"COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-27394363 - Fee: $400, filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. (Attorney Adam I Gafni added to party Barry Rosen(pty:pla))(Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 07/28/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/153288585/","id":153288585,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/158328774/","id":158328774,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2021-01-20T17:04:51.550986-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-20T17:04:51.554895-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text Only Scheduling Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-01-20T17:04:51.544893-08:00","date_modified":"2021-01-20T17:04:51.544925-08:00","date_filed":"2021-01-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-01-21T00:42:49+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/150211138/","id":150211138,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/155023995/","id":155023995,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/25/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-12-18T16:02:22.789289-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.247559-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034554309","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Related Case(s)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-12-18T16:02:22.782601-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.222383-08:00","date_filed":"2020-12-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-12-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":80,"description":"NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. Related Case(s): 2:20-cv-11408 (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 12/18/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/150179657/","id":150179657,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/154992273/","id":154992273,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/24/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-12-18T12:33:31.309276-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.202780-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034542715","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Contempt","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-12-18T12:33:31.302172-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.179546-08:00","date_filed":"2020-12-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-12-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":78,"description":"NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Contempt against Defendant, Invaluable, LLC filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. Motion set for hearing on 1/25/2021 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration Barry Rosen, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Declaration Adam I. Gafni, # 10 Exhibit 1, # 11 Exhibit 2, # 12 Exhibit 3, # 13 Proposed Order) (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 12/17/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/146921037/","id":146921037,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/151669719/","id":151669719,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/23/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-11-13T10:32:40.357444-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.159826-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034318864","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-11-13T10:32:40.350406-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.138870-08:00","date_filed":"2020-11-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-11-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":76,"description":"NOTICE Notice of Entry of Judgment filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 11/13/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/146625895/","id":146625895,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/151368747/","id":151368747,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/22/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-11-09T13:03:57.017295-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.123627-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034287737","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Report of Determination of Copyright Action (CLOSE) (AO 121)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-11-09T13:03:57.008281-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.101610-08:00","date_filed":"2020-11-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-11-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":74,"description":"REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION Regarding a Copyright. (Closing) (Attachments: # 1 Minute Order) (lom) (Entered: 11/09/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/146620282/","id":146620282,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/151363070/","id":151363070,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/21/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-11-09T12:33:56.143240-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-29T02:19:22.323018-08:00","sha1":"36d07b7cc6cf45c27d0261e5bdf305c2145638b1","page_count":11,"file_size":115198,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.789744/gov.uscourts.cacd.789744.21.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.789744/gov.uscourts.cacd.789744.21.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 11 PageJS-6\n                                                                        ID #:278\n\n                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                               CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                                November 9, 2020\nCase No.       2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                                    Date\nTitle\n               Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n\n Present: The Honorable        STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE\n                      T. Jackson                                                         N/A\n                    Deputy Clerk                                            Court Reporter / Recorder\n           Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:                            Attorneys Present for Defendants:\n                           N/A                                                            N/A\n Proceedings:               ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR DEFAULT\n                            JUDGMENT [19]\n\n    I.       Introduction\n\n    Plaintiff Barry Rosen filed the instant lawsuit on July 28, 2020 asserting copyright infringement\nclaims against Invaluable, LLC (\u201cInvaluable\u201d) and Igal Maoz, also known as Igal M. Atelier (\u201cMaoz\u201d). 1\nDkt. 1 (\u201cCompl.\u201d).\n\n     Before the Court is Plaintiff\u2019s motion for default judgment against both Invaluable and Maoz. Dkt.\n19 (\u201cMot.\u201d). For the reasons articulated below, the motion is GRANTED.\n\n    II.      Factual and Procedural Background\n\n     Plaintiff is a professional photographer who specializes in celebrity photography. Compl. \u00b6 18.\nInvaluable operates two websites (\u201cInvaluable Websites\u201d), auctionzip.com and invaluable.com, which\nhost auctions of items including signed celebrity photographs. Id. \u00b6 3. Maoz uses the Invaluable\nWebsites to sell photographic prints of celebrities under the name Igal M. Atelier. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 5-6.\n\n    Plaintiff registered a copyright in a photograph of Gena Lee Nolin on December 2, 2003 (\u201cNolin\nPhotograph\u201d). Declaration of Barry Rosen, Dkt. 19-5 \u00b6\u00b6 2-3; Ex. 1; Compl. \u00b6 21. On July 8, 2019,\n\n1\n  Plaintiff\u2019s motion for default judgment is inconsistent about this spelling, sometimes using \u201cMaoz\u201d and sometimes using\n\u201cMoaz.\u201d See generally Dkt. 19. \u201cMoaz\u201d is used in the case caption in the complaint. Dkt. 1. However, \u201cMaoz\u201d is used\nmore consistently throughout both documents. See generally Dkt. 1, 19. The Court will use \u201cMaoz\u201d in this order.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                           :\n                                                                   Initials of Preparer                              TJ\n\n                                               CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                         Page 1 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:279\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                   November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                           Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\nPlaintiff discovered that Maoz was selling unauthorized copies of the Nolin Photograph on\nliveauctioneers.com, Rosen Decl. \u00b6 6, a website that appears to be independent from the Invaluable\nWebsites. Plaintiff sent a notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (\u201cDMCA\u201d) to\nliveauctioneers.com, which removed the item. Id. \u00b6 7. On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff left a voice mail on a\nphone number listed on Maoz\u2019s website informing him that copies of the Nolin Photograph that Maoz\nwas trying to sell online were unauthorized. Id. \u00b6 8.\n\n     On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff discovered Maoz was also selling copies of the Nolin Photograph on the\nInvaluable Websites, auctionzip.com and invaluable.com. On July 19 and 20, 2019, Plaintiff sent\nDMCA notices to Invaluable stating that Maoz was selling and displaying unauthorized copies of the\nNolin Photograph on the Invaluable Websites. Compl. \u00b6 26; Rosen Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 11-12. Plaintiff received\na response with a case number. Id. \u00b6 12. Between July 24 and 31, 2019, Plaintiff discovered\nadditional listings of the Nolin Photograph by Maoz on the Invaluable Websites\u2014some promoting new\nsales and as many as 27 referencing past sales. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 13, 15, 19, 20. Plaintiff sent four additional\nnotices, and received responses with case numbers from Invaluable. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 14, 16, 10, 21.\n\n     On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff received a response from Invaluable indicating that the first reported\ninfringement had been removed and that Maoz had been advised not to list the Nolin Photograph again.\nId. \u00b6 22. As of October 1, 2020, 26 of the 27 items reported in Plaintiff\u2019s last DMCA notice had not\nbeen removed from the Invaluable Websites. Id. \u00b6 23.\n\n    Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 28, 2020. See Compl. Invaluable was served on August\n7. Dkt. 11. Maoz was served on August 29. Dkt. 13. The Clerk entered a default against Invaluable\non August 31, Dkt. 14, and a default against Maoz on September 25, Dkt. 18.\n\n    Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment against Invaluable and Maoz on October 7,\n2020. Dkt. 24. Plaintiff requests $25,000.00 in statutory damages, $14,085.00 in attorney\u2019s fees, and\n$473.17 in costs. Id. at 10-11. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction. Id. at 17-18.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                             :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                        TJ\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                 Page 2 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:280\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                     November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                            Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n   III.    Legal Standard\n\n     Before a court may rule on a motion for default judgment, it first must assess compliance with the\nprocedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 and Local Rule 55-1. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. California\nSecurity Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The motion must set forth: (1) when and\nagainst which party the default was entered; (2) the identification of the pleading to which default was\nentered; (3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that\nperson is adequately represented; (4) that the Solders\u2019 and Sailors\u2019 Civil Relief Act of 1940 does not\napply; and (5) that notice of the application has been served on the defaulting party, if required. Id.; see\nalso Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 919 n.19 (C.D. Cal. 2010)\n(service on defaulting party is required under Rule 55(b)(2) only if the party has appeared in the action).\n\n     Once these procedural requirements are met, \u201c[g]ranting or denying a motion for default judgment\nis a matter within the court\u2019s discretion.\u201d Landstar, 725 F. Supp. 2d at 919. Entry of default does not\nautomatically entitle the non-defaulting party to a court-ordered judgment. See PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp.\n2d at 1174. Rather, the Ninth Circuit has instructed courts to consider the following factors in deciding\nwhether to grant default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the\nplaintiff\u2019s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the\naction; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to\nexcusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring\ndecisions on the merits (\u201cEitel factor(s)\u201d). Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471\u201372 (9th Cir. 1986).\n\n   IV.     Analysis\n\n     The Court will first address the procedural requirements identified above and will then turn to the\nEitel factors. The Court will then proceed to consider injunctive relief, attorney\u2019s fees, and costs.\n\n           1.   Procedural Requirements\n\n    Plaintiff satisfies the procedural requirements for default judgment under Local Rule 55-1.\nSpecifically, Plaintiff\u2019s motion states that the clerk entered default against Invaluable on August 7, 2020\nand against Maoz on August 30, 2020 as to Plaintiff\u2019s July 28, 2020 complaint. Mot. at 2.\nAdditionally, Plaintiff provided the declaration of his counsel, Adam I. Gafni, who states that (1)\nDefendants are not minors, incompetent persons, soldiers in military service, or otherwise exempted\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                :\n                                                            Initials of Preparer                          TJ\n\n                                          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                   Page 3 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:281\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                     November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                            Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\nunder the Civil Relief Act. See Declaration of Adam I. Gafni, Dkt. 19-1 \u00b6\u00b6 12-13. Because\nDefendants have not appeared in the action, service of the motion for default judgment was not required\nunder Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Defendants nevertheless were served with the motion. Id. \u00b6 14.\n\n    As the procedural requirements are met, the Court turns to the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s motion.\n\n           2.   Application of the Eitel Factors\n\n    Applying the Eitel factors here, the Court finds that default judgment is warranted.\n\n    First, Plaintiff would suffer prejudice if default judgment is not entered because Plaintiff would be\nwithout other recourse to recover for Defendants\u2019 infringement of the Nolin Photograph. See PepsiCo,\n238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of granting default judgment.\n\n     Next, Plaintiff\u2019s complaint sufficiently states a meritorious claim for direct and contributory\ncopyright infringement. Upon entry of default, all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are taken as true,\nexcept those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917\u201318 (9th Cir.\n1987). The second and third Eitel factors relate to the substantive merit of a plaintiff\u2019s claim and the\nsufficiency of a plaintiff\u2019s pleadings. These factors \u201crequire that a plaintiff state a claim on which [he]\nmay recover.\u201d PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1175 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Landstar\nRanger, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d at 920.\n\n     \u201cPlaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1)\nthey must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the\nalleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7\n106.\u201d A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Under \u00a7 106, the owner of\ncopyright has the exclusive right to reproduce the work and distribute copies of the work to the public by\nsale. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 106(1), (3).\n\n     Plaintiff has alleged that Plaintiff owns the copyright in the Nolin Photograph, Compl. \u00b6 37,\nsatisfying the first requirement for a prima facie case of direct infringement.\n\n    Plaintiff alleges that Maoz copied, displayed, and distributed the Nolin Photograph by posting the\nNolin Photograph to sell prints on the Invaluable Websites. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 24, 26, 28, 40-41. Plaintiffs allege\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                               :\n                                                            Initials of Preparer                         TJ\n\n                                          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                  Page 4 of 11\n\f    Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:282\n\n                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                                November 9, 2020\n    Case No.   2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                                     Date\n    Title\n               Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\nthat Invaluable directly uploaded copies of the Nolin Photograph to its account on Pinterest, a social\nmedia website. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 30, 40-41. These allegations, taken as true, would be sufficient to satisfy the\nsecond requirement that Defendants violated the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. See\nColumbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013) (\u201c[U]ploading \u2026\ncopyrighted material are infringing acts.\u201d).\n\n     To establish a claim for contributory infringement, a plaintiff must show that the defendant \u201c(1) has\nknowledge of a third party\u2019s infringing activity, and (2) \u2018induces, causes, or materially contributes to the\ninfringing conduct.\u2019\u201d Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int\u2019l Serv. Ass\u2019n, 494 F.3d 788, 795 (9th Cir. 2007)\n(citation omitted). A defendant can be contributorily liable by operating an online system allowing\nusers to exchange copyrighted works. \u201c[I]f a computer system operator learns of specific infringing\nmaterial available on his system and fails to purge such material from the system, the operator knows of\nand contributes to direct infringement.\u201d Napster, 239 F.3d at 1021-22 (website \u201cprovid[ing] \u2018the site\nand facilities\u2019 for direct infringement\u201d materially contributes to infringing activity).\n\n    Plaintiff alleges that Invaluable received multiple DMCA notices relating to infringement of the\nNolin Photograph on the Invaluable Websites. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 26-29, 50-51. This allegation satisfies the\nknowledge requirement for a contributory infringement claim.\n\n     Plaintiff alleges that Invaluable \u201cowns, operates, controls, and manages the Invaluable Websites and\nrelated sub URLs.\u201d Compl. \u00b6 48. Plaintiff further alleges that Maoz made posts on the Invaluable\nWebsites displaying and promoting sales of the Nolin Photograph. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 26-31. These\nallegations satisfy the material contribution requirement for a contributory infringement claim. See\nNapster, 239 F.3d at 1021-22.\n\n    Because the allegations in the complaint state claims for direct and contributory infringement, the\nsecond and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for default judgment. 2\n\n     The fourth Eitel factor balances \u201cthe amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of the\n[d]efendant\u2019s conduct.\u201d PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1176; Landstar Ranger, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d at\n\n2\n  Plaintiff also alleges that the safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 does not apply because Invaluable failed to appoint a\ndesignated agent to received infringement notices. 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(c)(2); see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., 2013 WL\n1899851, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2013).\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                            :\n                                                                    Initials of Preparer                              TJ\n\n                                                CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                         Page 5 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:283\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                    November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                           Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n921. \u201cAbsent a finding of willfulness,\u201d statutory damages may be awarded \u201cin a sum of not less than\n$750 or more than $30,000\u201d per work infringed. Erickson Prods., Inc. v. Kast, 921 F.3d 822, 833 (9th\nCir. 2019) (quoting 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c)(1)). \u201cHowever, if the copyright owner proves that the\ninfringement was \u2018willful,\u2019 the court may increase the statutory damage award to $150,000 per work\ninfringed.\u201d Id. (quoting 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c)(2)).\n\n     Here, Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in statutory damages, which constitutes 2.5-5 times Plaintiff\u2019s license\nrate for editorial use of $5,000 - $10,000. Mot. at 16. Plaintiff\u2019s affidavit describes providing six\nDMCA notices to Invaluable, and states that Maoz received notice at least twice that he was selling\nunauthorized copies of the Nolin Photograph. Rosen Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6-22. Nevertheless, 26 of 27 items\nreported in Plaintiff\u2019s last DMCA notice to Invaluable have not been removed more than a year later.\nRosen Decl. \u00b6 23. Given the seriousness of Defendants\u2019 conduct and the possibility of an even higher\nstatutory damage award for willful conduct, this Eitel factor weighs in favor of entering default\njudgment. See CNC Software, Inc. v. T D Mfg., Inc., 2020 WL 2042330, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (default\njudgment for willful infringement appropriate where \u201cdamages sought are within a conservative and\npermissible range\u201d). This factor therefore weighs in favor of entering default judgment.\n\n     The fifth Eitel factor considers the possibility that material facts may be in dispute. PepsiCo, 238\nF.Supp.2d at 1177; Landstar Ranger, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916 at 921. Defendants have failed to\nappear in the action or to contest the material facts alleged in Plaintiff\u2019s complaint. Moreover, the\nallegations in Plaintiff\u2019s complaint\u2014the continued display and distribution of the Nolin Photograph on\nthe Invaluable Websites after notice\u2014are unlikely to be subject to reasonable dispute, especially as that\nconduct is demonstrated by screen captures of the alleged infringement and records of the relevant\ncorrespondence. See Rosen Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6-22; Exs. 2-31. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of\nentering default judgment.\n\n    As to the sixth Eitel factor, there is no evidence that Defendants\u2019 failure to appear is the result of\nexcusable neglect. Invaluable was properly served on August 7, 2020. Dkt. 11. The process server\nnoted that, although \u201c[t]he location was vacant and on lockdown due to Corona virus,\u201d she \u201cmanaged to\nhave someone call me back that agreed to meet me at Invaluable, LLC\u2019s location to accept service of the\ndocuments.\u201d Id. at 2.\n\n    Maoz was properly served on August 29, 2020. Dkt. 13. Maoz was served by mail under Cal.\nCiv. Proc. Code \u00a7 415.40. Id. There is evidence that Maoz is aware of the lawsuit, as Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                         TJ\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                  Page 6 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:284\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                    November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                            Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\ncounsel\u2019s billing records show that Plaintiff\u2019s counsel corresponded with Maoz about the lawsuit several\ntimes. Gafni Decl. \u00b6 10.\n\n    Accordingly, the sixth Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting a default judgment\n\n    As to the seventh and final Eitel factor, although cases should be decided on the merits whenever\npossible, \u201cthis preference, standing alone, is not dispositive.\u201d PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (quoting\nKloepping v. Fireman\u2019s Fund, 1996 WL 75314 at *3 (N.D.Cal.1996)). By its plain language, Rule\n55(a) allows a court to decide a case before the merits are heard if a defendant fails to appear and\ndefend. Therefore, this factor does not preclude the entry of default judgment.\n\n    For the foregoing reasons, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment.\n\n           3. Injunctive Relief\n\n    A party seeking injunctive relief must prove that (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2)\nremedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3)\nconsidering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is\nwarranted; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v.\nMercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).\n\n     Plaintiff satisfies his burden to show entitlement to injunctive relief here. First, Plaintiff alleges\nthat Defendants\u2019 infringement will prejudice future sale or licensing efforts, which caselaw recognizes\ncan constitute irreparable injury. Compl. \u00b6 23; see Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848,\n866 (9th Cir. 2017) (impairment of future licensing negotiations constitutes irreparable injury warranting\ncopyright injunction).\n\n     Second, Plaintiff alleges that monetary damages are inadequate because Defendants have continued\nto infringe even after receiving notice. Compl. \u00b6 34; Mot. at 17-18. Plaintiffs\u2019 failure to appear after\nignoring multiple DMCA notices and a cease-and-desist letter suggests that a damages award will not\ndeter future infringement. P and P Imps. LLC v. Outugo Inc., 2019 WL 4390576, at *7 (C.D. Cal.\n2019); see also Patagonia, Inc. v. Tradition, LLC, 2019 WL 1059687, at *7 (C.D. Cal. 2019).\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                           TJ\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                    Page 7 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:285\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                     CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                       November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                              Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n    Third, the balance of hardships favors Plaintiff. Failure to grant the injunction would expose\nPlaintiff to continuing irreparable harm without recourse. Moreover, there is little hardship on\nDefendant posed by an injunction against infringing activity. Id.\n\n    Finally, an injunction is in the public interest. \u201c[T]he public has a compelling interest in protecting\ncopyright owners\u2019 marketable rights to their work and the economic incentive to continue creating\u201d\ncelebrity photographs. VidAngel, 869 F.3d at 867.\n\n     Because all of the factors weigh in favor of injunctive relief, the Court will grant Plaintiff\u2019s request\nfor a permanent injunction.\n\n           4. Attorney\u2019s Fees\n\n     Under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505, \u201cthe court may also award a reasonable attorney\u2019s fee to the prevailing\nparty\u2026.\u201d \u201cIn deciding whether to award fees under the Copyright Act, the district court should\nconsider, among other things: the degree of success obtained on the claim; frivolousness; motivation;\nobjective reasonableness of factual and legal arguments; and need for compensation and\ndeterrence.\u201d Maljack Prods., Inc v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 1996)\n(citation omitted). Because Plaintiff made well-pleaded allegations of infringement and Defendants\nfailed to appear to defend the action, the Court finds that attorney\u2019s fees are warranted.\n\n    Plaintiff seeks to recover $14,085.00 in attorney\u2019s fees. Gafni Decl. \u00b6 10. Although Local Rule\n55-3 provides a fee schedule for default judgments, it also provides that \u201cthe district court, not the\nschedule, will fix the fee when a lawyer seeks more than the schedule provides\u201d according to the\nlodestar method. Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2018).\n\n     To assess whether a fee request is reasonable, courts apply a two-step analysis referred to as the\n\u201c\u2018lodestar\u2019 method.\u201d Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). First, \u201cthe court must\nstart by calculating the lodestar amount, which is the \u2018number of hours reasonably expended on the\nlitigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\u2019\u201d See Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d\n1096, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). \u201cSecond, \u2018[t]he\ndistrict court may \u2026 adjust [the lodestar] upward or downward based on a variety of factors.\u201d\nGonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Moreno v. City of\nSacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008)). The Ninth Circuit has \u201cidentified no fewer than 12\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                  :\n                                                             Initials of Preparer                           TJ\n\n                                           CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                    Page 8 of 11\n\f Case 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:286\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                    November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                           Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\nfactors to be considered.\u201d Vargas, v. Howell, 949 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and\nquotation marks omitted).\n\n     Fee applicants have the burden of producing evidence that their requested rates are \u2018in line with\nthose prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,\nexperience and reputation.\u201d Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1110. Plaintiff\u2019s requested rates are $450 per hour\nfor a partner with over fifteen years of experience and $350 for an associate with around three years of\nexperience. The Court finds these rates reasonable in these circumstances. See Perfect 10, Inc. v.\nGiganews, Inc., 2015 WL 1746484, at *15 (C.D. Cal. 2015).\n\n    A district court may reduce the hours billed to a reasonable level if they are excessive or\nduplicative. Vargas, 949 F.3d at 1199 (\u201c[T]he district court is in the best position to discern what work\nwas unnecessary.\u201d (quoting Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011)). A fee applicant\nmust exercise \u201cbilling judgment.\u201d Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (citation omitted).\n\u201cHours that are not properly billed to one\u2019s client also are not properly billed to one\u2019s adversary\npursuant to statutory authority.\u201d Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).\n\n     The Court concludes that it would be unreasonable to bill a private client for 38.3 hours of work on\na matter that never reached an adversarial determination. Gafni Decl. \u00b6 10. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel spent\napproximately 13.1 hours preparing this motion for default judgment after already billing 4.3 hours for\nwork on the demand letter, 7.7 hours for work on the complaint, and 4.8 hours drafting documents in\nconnection with the applications to the Clerk for entry of default. Id. The motion for default judgment\nitself was not complex and relied heavily on the facts and legal theories developed at previous phases.\nThe Court will therefore deduct 75% from the hours billed for work on the motion for default judgment,\nreducing the recovery by $3,705.\n\n     The Court concludes that it was excessive for Plaintiff\u2019s counsel to bill such so much time for the\nfollowing tasks. As far as they are described, these tasks are so simple that a private attorney would not\nbill a client for more than half the time presently sought.\n\n Date         Hours     Description                        Rate         Attorney         Amount\n 8/17/2020    1.0       Draft and finalize waiver of       $350.00      Fountain         $350.00\n                        service re: Maoz\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                         TJ\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                  Page 9 of 11\n\fCase 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:287\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                    CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                    November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                           Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n 8/19/2020    0.8        Draft correspondence to I.        $350.00      Fountain          $280.00\n                         Maoz (unrepresented) re:\n                         confirming correspondence\n 8/21/2020    0.2        Revise correspondence to          $450.00      Gafni             $90.00\n                         Maoz (unrepresented) re:\n                         confirming\n                         correspondence\n 8/21/2020    0.2        Finalize correspondence to        $350.00      Fountain          $70.00\n                         Maoz (unrepresented) re:\n                         confirming correspondence\n 8/21/2020    0.6        Draft proof of service re: Igal   $350.00      Fountain          $210.00\n                         Maoz\n TOTAL                                                                                    $1,000.00\n\nGafni Decl. \u00b6 10. The Court will deduct 50% from these excessive charges for a total deduction of\n$500.00.\n\n     The Court also concludes that some of Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s billing entries were so vague as to\nfrustrate the Court\u2019s ability to assess whether the billing was reasonable. District courts may deduct\nfrom a fee applicant\u2019s requested lodestar for billing entries so vague as to frustrate review. See Fischer\nv. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court determines that the below entries\nwere too vague to assess their reasonableness.\n\n\n Date         Hours      Description                       Rate         Attorney          Amount\n 7/27/2020    1.0        Finalize complaint packet         $350.00      Fountain          $350.00\n 8/4/2020     0.4        Analyze docket re: summons        $350.00      Fountain          $140.00\n 8/11/2020    0.9        Draft memorandum re: case         $350.00      Fountain          $315.00\n                         status\n 8/18/2020    0.4        Draft memorandum re: case         $350.00      Fountain          $140.00\n                         status\n 8/31/2020    0.5        Draft memorandum re: case         $350.00      Fountain          $140.00\n                         status\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                               :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                           TJ\n\n                                          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                  Page 10 of 11\n\fCase 2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS Document 21 Filed 11/09/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:288\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                   CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n                                                                                    November 9, 2020\nCase No.     2:20-cv-06756-SVW-AS                                           Date\nTitle\n             Barry Rosen v. Invaluable, LLC et al\n\n\n 9/25/2020    2.4       Draft default judgment packet      $350.00      Fountaion        $800.00\n TOTAL                                                                                   $1,885.00\n\nGafni Decl. \u00b6 10. The Court will consequently reduce those entries by 30% for a total deduction of\n$565.50. See Lahiri v. Universal Music and Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1222-23 (9th Cir.\n2010) (affirming reduction of inadequately documented entries by 30%).\n\n   For the reasons stated above, the Court will deduct $4,770.50 from the requested fee award. The\nCourt grants Plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $9,314.50.\n\n           5. Costs\n\n    Plaintiff has also applied for $473.17 in costs for filing fees and service expenses. Gafni Decl. \u00b6\u00b6\n10-11. The court may allow recovery of costs in copyright cases under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505. The Court\ngrants Plaintiff\u2019s request for $473.17 in costs.\n\n   V.      Conclusion\n\n       For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff\u2019s motion for default judgment. Plaintiff\nis awarded monetary damages of $25,000, attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $9,314.50, and $473.17 in\ncosts. Additionally, the Court orders the following injunctive relief:\n\n        Defendants Invaluable, LLC and Igal Maoz aka/dba Igal M. Atelier are enjoined from engaging\n        in further acts of copyright infringement of the Nolin Photograph (Copyright Registration No.\n        VA 1-274-965), are ordered to remove the Nolin Photograph from and cease to display it on all\n        websites under their control, cease to display the Nolin Photograph publicly, and cease to\n        otherwise distribute the Nolin Photograph.\n\n    IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                              :\n                                                           Initials of Preparer                          TJ\n\n                                         CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL                                  Page 11 of 11\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-02-26T09:36:53.058398-08:00","document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034287497","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Default Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-11-09T12:33:56.134484-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.062628-08:00","date_filed":"2020-11-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-11-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":67,"description":"MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 19 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Plaintiff is awarded monetary damages of $25,000, attorney's fees in the amount of $9,314.50, and $473.17 in costs. Additionally, the Court orders the following injunctive relief: Defendants Invaluable, LLC and Igal Maoz aka/dba Igal M. Atelier are enjoined from engaging in further acts of copyright infringement of the Nolin Photograph (Copyright Registration No. VA 1-274-965), are ordered to remove the Nolin Photograph from and cease to display it on all websites under their control, cease to display the Nolin Photograph publicly, and cease to otherwise distribute the Nolin Photograph. See minute order for details. (lom) (Entered: 11/09/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/146168554/","id":146168554,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/150903345/","id":150903345,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2020-11-04T10:33:02.706566-08:00","date_modified":"2020-11-04T10:33:02.709535-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text Only Scheduling Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-11-04T10:33:02.701545-08:00","date_modified":"2020-11-04T10:33:02.701568-08:00","date_filed":"2020-11-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-11-04T18:23:55+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/143367297/","id":143367297,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/148055658/","id":148055658,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/19/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-10-07T16:03:16.008579-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:59.007911-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031034065594","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Default Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-10-07T16:03:16.001861-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.985047-08:00","date_filed":"2020-10-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-10-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":63,"description":"NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Default Judgment against Defendants Invaluable, LLC and Igal Maoz filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. Motion set for hearing on 11/9/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Adam I. Gafni, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Declaration Barry Rosen, # 6 Exhibit 1, # 7 Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit 7, # 13 Exhibit 8, # 14 Exhibit 9, # 15 Exhibit 10, # 16 Exhibit 11, # 17 Exhibit 12, # 18 Exhibit 13, # 19 Exhibit 14, # 20 Exhibit 15, # 21 Exhibit 16, # 22 Exhibit 17, # 23 Exhibit 18, # 24 Exhibit 19, # 25 Exhibit 20, # 26 Exhibit 21, # 27 Exhibit 22, # 28 Exhibit 23, # 29 Exhibit 24, # 30 Exhibit 25, # 31 Exhibit 26, # 32 Exhibit 27, # 33 Exhibit 28, # 34 Exhibit 29, # 35 Exhibit 30, # 36 Exhibit 31, # 37 Exhibit 32, # 38 Exhibit 33, # 39 Proposed Order) (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 10/07/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/142131355/","id":142131355,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/146799766/","id":146799766,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/18/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-09-25T09:34:21.541703-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.965432-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033975129","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerks Entry of Default (CV-37) - optional html form","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-09-25T09:34:21.533752-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.942346-08:00","date_filed":"2020-09-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-09-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":61,"description":"DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to Igal Moaz an individual also known as Igal M. Atelier doing business as Igal M. Atelier. (mrgo) (Entered: 09/25/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/142060914/","id":142060914,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/146728533/","id":146728533,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/17/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-09-24T16:01:45.880910-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.920612-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033971379","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Document (Non-Motion)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-09-24T16:01:45.874374-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.896003-08:00","date_filed":"2020-09-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-09-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":58,"description":"AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiff Barry Rosen. Amendment to Deficiency - Default /Default Judgment (CV-52b) - optional html form, 16 Second Application for Entry of Default Against Defendant, Igal Moaz AKA Igal M. Atelier (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Adam I. Gafni, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Declaration Fiona Snoxell, # 5 Exhibit 1)(Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 09/24/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/141854541/","id":141854541,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/146519509/","id":146519509,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/16/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-09-23T09:34:38.363137-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.880544-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033954803","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Deficiency - Default /Default Judgment (CV-52b) - optional html form","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-09-23T09:34:38.356331-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.848114-08:00","date_filed":"2020-09-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-09-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":55,"description":"NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY Re: APPLICATION for Clerk to Enter Default against Igal Moaz Igal Moaz 15 . The Clerk cannot enter the requested relief as: Proof of Service is lacking required information. Requesting party shall file a new Request/Application with noted deficiencies corrected in order to have default reconsidered. The return receipt(s) are missing. (mrgo) (Entered: 09/23/2020)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/141718845/","id":141718845,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/17390117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/146382055/","id":146382055,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/17390117/15/barry-rosen-v-invaluable-llc/","date_created":"2020-09-22T09:32:54.271301-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.831634-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031033945748","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk to Enter Default","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-09-22T09:32:54.263424-07:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T09:35:58.808160-08:00","date_filed":"2020-09-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-09-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":53,"description":"APPLICATION for Clerk to Enter Default against Igal Moaz Igal Moaz filed by Barry Rosen Barry Rosen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1 of Declaration) (Gafni, Adam) (Entered: 09/22/2020)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=17390117&page_size=40"}