Tamara Wareka v. Dolce Vita Health Center, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 TAMARA WAREKA, No. 2:24-cv-01440-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 14 DOLCE VITA HEALTH CENTER, INC., GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 22, 29) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motions for default judgment. (Doc. No. 22.) 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 6, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued amended findings and 22 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s second motion for entry of default judgment be 23 granted. (Doc. No. 29.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that under the applicable 24 legal standards plaintiff was entitled to the entry of a default judgment against defendants as to all 25 claims asserted in this action. (Id. at 5–12.) However, as to the terms of the judgment, plaintiff 26 had sought $24,400 in statutory damages, $3,217.50 in attorney’s fees and $850, with post- 27 judgment interest at .70% per annum and permanent injunctive relief, while the magistrate judge 28 instead recommended statutory damages in a total amount of $6,500 and the denial of a 1 permanent injunction while adopting plaintiff’s request with respect to attorney’s fees, costs and 2 post-judgment interest. (Id. at 13–18.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5 18.) On November 19, 2025, plaintiff filed timely objections to those findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 30.) In those objections counsel on behalf of plaintiff argues that 7 the magistrate judge erred in rejecting the request for the award of $19,400 in statutory damages 8 as to her copyright infringement claim and instead recommending only $1,500 in statutory 9 damages as to that claim. (Id. at 1–2.) In so objecting, plaintiff points to evidence presented as to 10 the actual amount of damages plaintiff suffered and the commercial nature of defendants’ use of 11 the copyrighted photograph. (Id. at 2–8.) However, in plaintiff’s motion for entry of default 12 judgment she clearly sought the award of statutory, not actual, damages with respect to her 13 copyright infringement claim. (Doc. No. 22 at 13–15.) As correctly noted in the pending 14 findings and recommendations: 15 “If statutory damages are elected, ‘[t]he court has wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages to be awarded, 16 constrained only by the specified maxima and minima.’” Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pausa Recs., Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 1990) 17 (quoting Harris v. Emus Recs. Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984)). In measuring statutory damages, a court is guided by “what 18 is just in the particular case, considering the nature of the copyright, the circumstances of the infringement and the like .... Within these 19 limitations the court’s discretion and sense of justice are controlling ....” Id. (quoting F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 20 344 U.S. 228, 232 (1952). 21 (Doc. No. 29 at 13–14.)1 In light of the circumstances presented by this case and the nature of the 22 infringement, the undersigned has no disagreement with the recommendation as to what is a just 23 award of statutory damages in this case. 24 /////

25 1 See Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 81 F.4th 843, 858 (9th Cir. 2023); Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th 26 Cir. 2001) (“If statutory damages are elected, ‘[t]he court has wide discretion in determining the 27 amount of statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only by the specified maxima and minima.’”); see also Dream Games of Arizona, Inc. v. PC Onsite, 561 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 28 2009). 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 3 | plaintiff s/defendant’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 4 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. The amended findings and recommendations issued on November 6, 2025 (Doc. 7 No. 29), are adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment (Doc. No. 22) is granted; 9 3. Plaintiff is awarded $1,500 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 as to 10 her claim one; 11 4. Plaintiff is awarded $5,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203 as 12 to her claims two and three; 13 5. Plaintiff is awarded $3,217.50 in attorney fees and $850 in costs; 14 6. Plaintiff is awarded post-judgment interest as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), 15 which shall accrue from the time of entry of judgment until the judgment is 16 satisfied in full; 17 7. Plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction is denied; and 18 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgement in plaintiffs favor and to 19 close this case. *" | Dated: _ February 16, 2026 Da A. 2, axel UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28