Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Timeless Production FZ LLC, a United Arab Emirates limited liability company that produces content for the “Tekniq” YouTube channel, sued Defendant Alexandr Vladimirovic Vitvitskiy, a resident of Ukraine who manages multiple YouTube channels, for copyright infringement and related claims. Timeless alleged that Vitvitskiy systematically reproduced and distributed its copyrighted videos without authorization and submitted fraudulent DMCA counter-notices misrepresenting ownership of the content. The Clerk issued a summons on July 30, 2025.
The Court granted alternative service by email on January 29, 2026, and Plaintiff served Vitvitskiy on February 2, 2026. After Vitvitskiy failed to respond, the Clerk entered default on April 30, 2026. Plaintiff then moved for default judgment seeking over $1.5 million in damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without prejudice.
The Court found three independent grounds for denial: (1) Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence or analysis establishing personal jurisdiction over Vitvitskiy, a Ukrainian resident, particularly given Plaintiff’s own foreign status and the need to show purposeful direction toward California; (2) The Eitel factors weighed against default judgment because Plaintiff only addressed the sufficiency of its § 512(f) claim and failed to show standing—takedown notices identified “We Protect Your Content” and Kenneth Silvers as the copyright owner/authorized representative with no explanation of their relationship to Timeless; and (3) Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the relief sought, offering only conclusory assertions of statutory damages without evidence of actual harm proximately caused by the alleged misrepresentations, and no lodestar calculation for attorneys’ fees. The Court granted leave to file an amended complaint and/or renewed motion by November 12, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A default does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to establish personal jurisdiction; the court has an affirmative duty to verify jurisdiction over the parties before entering default judgment.
- For a § 512(f) claim, the plaintiff must be the copyright owner or authorized licensee who sent the takedown notices; discrepancies between the named plaintiff and the entity identified in takedown notices (here, “We Protect Your Content” and Kenneth Silvers) defeat standing absent explanatory evidence.
- Conclusory requests for statutory damages under § 504(c) and § 1203 are insufficient on a default judgment motion; the plaintiff must provide evidence of actual damages proximately caused by the specific violation alleged (here, § 512(f) misrepresentations) and a lodestar calculation for fees.
- A plaintiff seeking default judgment must address all claims in the complaint; addressing only one count (Count VII) while ignoring six others results in failure to satisfy Eitel factors 2 and 3.
- Denial without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure deficiencies by amending the complaint and/or submitting a renewed motion with proper jurisdictional analysis, standing evidence, and damages proof.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s rigorous approach to default judgments in copyright cases involving foreign defendants and DMCA takedown/counter-notice disputes. It clarifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on boilerplate jurisdictional allegations or bare statutory damage requests; they must affirmatively prove personal jurisdiction (especially critical when both parties are foreign entities), establish a clear chain of ownership/authorization for DMCA standing, and provide itemized evidence of damages and fees. The ruling also highlights the practical importance of ensuring takedown notices accurately identify the true copyright owner or authorized agent to avoid standing defects in subsequent litigation.
The ruling is case-specific and should be read with its procedural posture and, where applicable, its nonprecedential status in mind. The result is narrowly framed. Practitioners should distinguish the court’s actual disposition from issues it mentioned but expressly left unresolved.