Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Viral DRM LLC, which the complaint describes as a syndicator of extreme weather video, and six individual videographers sued Ana Navarro and El Heraldo de Mexico, who are located in Mexico. The claims were copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and removal or falsification of copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The first amended complaint alleges that defendants copied plaintiffs' weather videos from YouTube, removed plaintiffs' watermarks, re-uploaded the videos to their own channel, and earned revenue through YouTube's monetization program. Because defendants defaulted, those allegations were taken as true and were never tested. Eight copyrighted works are at issue.
After plaintiffs had trouble serving defendants in Mexico, the court authorized service by email and website posting on April 7, 2026, and defendants were served two days later. They never appeared. The Clerk entered default on May 14, 2026, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment on June 24, 2026. After a September 25, 2026 hearing at which no defendant appeared, and after plaintiffs confirmed FedEx delivery of the motion to Navarro's address in Mexico, Judge Susan Illston ruled on October 20, 2026. The court found federal question jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, the latter based on defendants' counter-notifications to YouTube consenting to this district's jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 512.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the Eitel factors, the court found default judgment appropriate for five works, but only after screening for standing. It declined to enter default judgment for Viral DRM, which offered no evidence that it owned or beneficially owned any exclusive right and appears on no registration certificate. It also declined as to Nicholas Gorman's work because no registration certificate for it was attached to either complaint. It declined as to Clement and Petramala's claims on two Florida works registered to non-party Global Weather Productions LLC. The order does not grant leave to amend for these claims. It states that all relief not granted is denied.
On the five remaining works, Emfinger received $2,500 in actual damages rather than the $25,000 he sought. His standard $2,500 thirty-day license includes perpetual rights and would have covered use in a single defendant video. The court refused enhanced statutory damages because the first amended complaint never uses the word willful and does not allege knowing or intentional infringement. Only the $750 to $30,000 per-work range therefore applied. Jayjack received $3,000 (he requested $22,500), McKinney received $9,000 (he requested $45,000), and Clement received $10,000 for each of two works, $20,000 in total. The court rejected Clement's calculations because his declaration contained errors and relied on a redacted licensing chart with no fee figures.
For copyright management information violations, the court awarded the $2,500 statutory minimum per violation. Clement received $10,000, and Jayjack received $5,000 for two instances of added watermarks. The court noted that these claims carry no willfulness enhancement. It reduced attorney's fees from the $12,520 requested to $10,000 because of errors and missing documents in plaintiffs' filings, and it awarded costs of $1,245.16 in full. It also granted post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and entered a permanent injunction limited to the five identified works. The court relied on defendants' continued operation of their YouTube channel and their failure to participate. The order is designated a final judgment on which execution shall issue.
Key Takeaways
- Entry of default admits well-pleaded liability facts but does not cure standing defects, so plaintiffs must supply registration certificates or ownership evidence for each work.
- Willfulness must be pleaded in the complaint, and arguments first made in a default-judgment motion are not taken as true and cannot support enhanced statutory damages.
- Damages requests on default need coherent, documented calculations, and the court cut each request to figures it could justify.
- A hypothetical-license measure of actual damages is limited by the plaintiff's own standard license terms, including any bundled perpetual rights.
- Attorney's fees can be reduced for error-filled or incomplete filings even when the defendant has defaulted.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order in a single case and is not binding precedent. Its value is as an example of how a Northern District judge tests default-judgment requests for standing, pleading of willfulness and damages support rather than accepting them as filed. The court cited another judge's criticism of earlier filings by the same plaintiff's counsel when it reduced the fee award.
Several matters remain open. The claims dismissed for lack of standing were denied without a stated opportunity to amend, and the order does not say whether those plaintiffs may refile. The order also does not address how the judgment would be collected from defendants located in Mexico.