Duffy Archive Limited v. Soul Lounge, LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-08322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Duffy Archive v. Soul Lounge, Judge Chesney granted in part and denied in part default judgment, awarding money but denying an injunction.
Duffy Archive Limited received monetary awards, while Soul Lounge, LLC was not subject to the requested permanent injunction.
What happened
In Duffy Archive Limited v. Soul Lounge, LLC, the plaintiff asked for default judgment after the defendant filed no response. The court considered the written materials, canceled the scheduled hearing, and ruled on the motion.
The court awarded $9,000 in statutory damages, $418.55 in prejudgment interest, $11,497.50 in attorney’s fees, and $415.82 in costs. It also awarded post-judgment interest at the legally applicable rate. The court denied the request for a permanent injunction because the evidence indicated that Soul Lounge had dissolved and did not show a continuing threat of infringement. The plaintiff’s separate request to appear remotely was denied as moot.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted in part and denied in part the motion for default judgment. The order did not find enough support for additional damages based on willfulness, scarcity, or exclusivity.
The detailed version
- Duffy Archive Limited v. Soul Lounge, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-08322
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
Duffy Archive Limited moved for default judgment on November 18, 2022. Soul Lounge, LLC filed no response. The court found the matter suitable for decision based on the written submissions, vacated the January 13, 2023 hearing, and ruled that the motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Damages
Duffy Archive elected statutory damages instead of proving actual damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)(2). The statute permits statutory damages between $750 and $30,000. The court awarded $9,000, calculated as three times Duffy Archive’s stated $3,000 license fee.
Duffy Archive sought a higher multiplier based on alleged willful infringement. The court rejected that request because the complaint contained no supporting facts and the record suggested a lack of willfulness. The court also rejected an additional multiplier based on scarcity and exclusivity. It found the cited case distinguishable because that case involved a rare image and extensive use on numerous websites, while the use shown here involved a single Instagram posting of a photograph.
The court awarded prejudgment interest at the requested 1.56% rate from January 17, 2020, the alleged start of the infringement, through January 9, 2023, the date the judgment was to be entered. The award was $418.55.
Injunction
The court denied a permanent injunction. Duffy Archive’s evidence indicated that Soul Lounge had dissolved on or before April 19, 2022, and Duffy Archive did not show a continuing threat of future infringement.
Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Interest
The court awarded Duffy Archive $11,497.50 in attorney’s fees and $415.82 in costs, finding both amounts reasonable based on the materials submitted. It also ordered that Duffy Archive recover post-judgment interest at the applicable legal rate from the date judgment was entered.
Disposition
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted in part and denied in part Duffy Archive’s motion for default judgment. The court also denied as moot the administrative motion to appear remotely.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.