Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
FACEBOOK, INC.,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
MARTIN GRUNIN,
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Alsup, United States
District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, 19th Floor, Courtroom 8,
Plaintiff Facebook, Inc., by and through its counsel Perkins Coie LLP, will and hereby does move
8
9
This motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) and as directed by the Courts
October 30, 2014 Order Denying [the Defendants] Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 65), on the
10
grounds that Grunin has failed to respond to Facebooks Complaint and is currently in default
11
(Dkt. 22).
12
Facebooks request for default judgment is based on this motion and the attached
13
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, default entered by the Clerk of the Court (Dkt. 22),
14
Facebooks Complaint (Dkt. 1), and all other pleadings and documents on file in this action.
15
16
By: /s/ Judith B. Jennison
Judith B. Jennison, Bar No. 165929
JJennison@perkinscoie.com
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
4
Page
I.
II.
5
6
7
8
III.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
IV.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 1
A.
Facebook Background............................................................................................. 1
B.
Summary of Grunins Illegal Activities.................................................................. 2
C.
Harm to Facebook ................................................................................................... 5
D.
Grunin Has Failed to Answer and Has Abused the Judicial Process by
Filing Threatening and Nonsensical Documents With the Court ........................... 5
LEGAL ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 6
A.
Facebook Is Entitled to Default Judgment for Grunins Unlawful Activities ........ 6
1.
Each of Facebooks Claims Is Well Grounded ........................................... 6
a.
Grunins Breach of Contract ........................................................... 6
b.
Grunins Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ............ 7
c.
Grunins Violation of the California Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ............................................ 8
d.
Grunins Fraud on Facebook........................................................... 9
2.
Facebook Has Met the Legal Standard for Entry of Default
Judgment ................................................................................................... 11
a.
Possibility of Prejudice ................................................................. 11
b.
Merits of Facebooks Substantive Claims..................................... 12
c.
Sufficiency of the Complaint and the Possibility of Dispute
Concerning Material Facts ............................................................ 12
d.
Amount of Money at Stake ........................................................... 12
e.
Whether Default Was Due to Excusable Neglect ......................... 13
f.
Policy in Favor of Decisions on the Merits................................... 13
B.
Facebook Is Entitled to Damages Caused by Grunins Illegal Behavior, to
Punitive Damages For His Fraudulent Activities, and to Attorneys Fees
Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 502........................................................................ 13
C.
Grunin Should Be Permanently Enjoined from Accessing and Abusing
Facebooks Services.............................................................................................. 14
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page
Federal Cases
APL Co. Pte., Ltd. v. CNJ Intl, Inc., No. C 12-04758 WHA, 2013 WL 622357
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013) .........................................................................................................13
A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,
562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009).....................................................................................................14
Bennett v. Am. Med. Response, Inc.,
226 F. Appx 725 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................13
Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc.,
694 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................11
Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com LLC,
386 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................15
Eitel v. McCool,
782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986)...................................................................................................11
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.,
844 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................................8, 9
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.,
No. 08-CV-5780-LHK, 2013 WL 5372341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013)...................................15
18
Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916 (C.D. Cal. 2010).........11, 12, 13
19
20
21
22
23
24
PepsiCo Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .............................13
25
26
27
Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal.
2003) ...................................................................................................................................12, 13
28
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page
Schenker, Inc. v. Predator Mogulwear, Inc., No. C 07-01795 WHA, 2007 WL
4556915 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007) ....................................................................................12, 13
TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal,
826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987).................................................................................................6, 13
State Cases
Agosta v. Astor,
15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 565 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) ..................................................................................9
Federal Statutes
10
11
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)......................................................................................................................7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4)......................................................................................................................7
18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)......................................................................................................................8
18 U.S.C. 1030(g) ........................................................................................................................15
State Statutes
Cal. Civ. Code 3294 .....................................................................................................................14
Cal. Civil Code 1709....................................................................................................................13
Cal. Civil Code 3300....................................................................................................................13
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rules
26
27
28
-iii-
Defendant Martin Grunin has repeatedly and systematically misused Facebooks platform
3
4
INTRODUCTION
and services for his own benefit. His actions fall into three categories:
on those accounts. He then ran his own deceptive advertising campaigns using the
compromised accounts, gaining referral fees from third parties for each user
10
Grunin sold fraudulently obtained advertising accounts to third parties for his own
gain.
11
12
Facebook requests entry of default judgment against Grunin on its claims for breach of
13
14
contract, fraud, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the California
15
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. Facebook seeks compensatory damages,
16
punitive damages, attorneys fees, and a permanent injunction. Facebook understands from the
17
Courts Notice Regarding Default and Default Judgment that [i]f and when default judgment is
18
entered, the undersigned judge will invite declarations as to damages flowing from the well-pled
19
allegations in the operative complaint and in some instances will hold a prove-up evidentiary
20
hearing to establish damages. (Dkt. 61 at 2.) Accordingly, Facebook has not attempted to
21
22
23
24
II.
A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Facebook Background
Facebook offers an online service that enables people to connect and share. Facebook
25
facilitates the sharing of information through the social grapha digital mapping of users real-
26
world social connections. Compl. 11. More than one billion people use Facebook each month.
27
Compl. 11. To use Facebook, a person must create a Facebook account by providing his or her
28
name, a valid email address, or a verified mobile telephone number and agree to the terms of
-1-
12.
Facebook generates a portion of its revenue by selling ads that it displays to users when
they use Facebooks websites or mobile applications. Compl. 13. Advertisers typically
purchase ads directly through Facebooks online tool, and they may also interact with Facebook
sales representatives for assistance with their accounts. Compl. 14. All Facebook advertisers
must open an advertising account. Facebook permits advertisers to create multiple advertising
accounts. Compl. 17. Facebook typically imposes spending limits on advertising accounts to
ensure that advertisers do not run up more advertising costs than they are able to pay. Facebook
10
bills some advertisers once per day, while settling other accounts by invoicing the advertisers on a
11
monthly or periodic basis, where the advertisers have a proven track record of reliability. Compl.
12
18.
13
To standardize and protect the Facebook experience for the people who use its service,
14
Facebook requires that all ads comply with Facebooks Advertising Guidelines. For example, the
15
Advertising Guidelines prohibit (1) false, misleading, fraudulent, or deceptive claims or content,
16
and (2) ads that contain adult content or activities that are overly suggestive or sexually
17
provocative. The Advertising Guidelines require that products and services promoted in the ad
18
copy must be clearly represented on the destination page and that the destination site may not
19
offer or link to any prohibited product or service. Compl. 15. Facebooks Terms incorporate
20
Facebooks Advertising Guidelines. Advertisers also agree to the Advertising Guidelines when
21
22
B.
23
24
provocative content. These ads purported to offer casual dating services and included a picture of
25
a woman with a sexually explicit and profane caption. Compl. 21. When users clicked on the
26
ads, they were redirected to third-party websites that paid Grunin for the referral traffic. Compl.
27
22. Both the sexually explicit nature of Grunins advertising and the deceptive methods he used
28
to bait users into clicking on his ads violate Facebooks Terms. When Facebook discovered this
-2-
activity, it sent Grunin a cease-and-desist letter demanding that he and anyone working with him
immediately stop accessing Facebook and revoking his authorization to access Facebook.
Compl. 25. Facebook also took technical measures to block Grunins access to Facebook by,
among other things, disabling Grunins personal account and advertising accounts. Compl. 23.
Grunin confirmed receipt of the demand letter and responded with two words: I comply.
Compl. 26.
But, Grunin did not comply with Facebooks demands; instead he created new user
including that Facebook users provide their real names and information, that they not provide any
10
false personal information on Facebook or create an account for anyone other than themselves
11
without permission, and that they not create new accounts after their accounts have been disabled.
12
Compl. 24. Grunin also sold unauthorized access to Facebook advertising accounts to
13
individuals who intended to run ads without paying for them. Compl. 30. Grunin targeted
14
buyers who could not otherwise obtain Facebook advertising accounts because Facebook had
15
previously banned them or because they did not have adequate credit for the accounts they
16
17
In 2012, Grunin took his illegal activity on Facebook to the next level, impersonating
18
legitimate Facebook advertising customers so that he could run his own advertisements on their
19
dimes. For example, in November 2012, Grunin used the alias Kayla Stewart to pose as an
20
21
Facebook into creating new lines of advertising accounts with high spending limits for a
22
Marketing Drive subsidiary called Thinkmodo. Compl. 31. Because Marketing Drive was on a
23
monthly billing cycle, Grunin was able to run a large number of ads without paying for them
24
before Facebook and Marketing Drive discovered the fraud. Compl. 33. By the time Facebook
25
discovered the fraud, Grunin had purchased $40,712.91 worth of ads, which were charged to
26
27
Jennifer Lopez and Dr. Oz. Compl. 37. Facebook has never been paid for these ads. Compl.
28
38.
-3-
Grunins fraud continued in February 2013, when he used the alias Colan Neilson to
contact a Facebook sales representative by email, claiming that Neilsons employer, Imprezzio
Marketing (another one of Facebooks legitimate advertising customers), was expanding into the
Canadian market and needed ten new advertising accounts and a line of credit. Compl. 39.
Grunin then posed as the purported President of Imprezzio Marketing, Felix Ward, to support
Neilsons request for additional advertising accounts and a line of credit. Facebooks sales
representative requested that Ward have one of his U.S. colleagues contact Facebook. Compl.
41. Soon thereafter, the same Facebook representative received an email purportedly from Joy
Hawkins, the Search Engine Optimization Director of Imprezzio Marketing, using the email
10
joy@imprezziomarketing.com. The email stated: Felix requested that I send this email to you.
11
He will contact you in the next 15 minutes. Compl. 43. Facebook requested supporting
12
documentation to establish the credit, whereupon Grunin sent falsified bank statements that
13
purported to show Imprezzio Marketings finances. Compl. 45. But when Facebook contacted
14
Imprezzio Marketing about the ads and the charges, Imprezzio Marketings representatives stated
15
that no one named Felix Ward worked at Imprezzio Marketing, and that the bank statements
16
had been falsified. Compl. 47. Grunin had either hijacked Hawkinss email account to send the
17
email or spoofed the from line of his email to make it appear that it came from Hawkins.
18
Compl. 44.
19
Relying on Wards and Neilsons representations, the email from Joy Hawkins, and
20
the falsified bank statements, Facebook provided advertising accounts and a credit line billed to
21
Imprezzio Marketing. Grunin then used the account to run at least $300,000 worth of deceptive
22
ads that violated Facebooks Terms. Compl. 46. To date, Facebook has not been paid for the
23
ads it served for the unauthorized Imprezzio Marketing accounts, and Grunin likely earned
24
significant sums of money in commission payments from his unauthorized campaigns. Compl.
25
46.
26
27
accounts were calculated and willful. Each time Facebook implemented technical measures to
28
disable one of Grunins user accounts (all but the first of which were created in violation of
-4-
Facebooks Terms), Grunin, to avoid detection and circumvent Facebooks technical measures,
adjusted his behavior before creating, obtaining, or using new accounts to resume his placement
of noncompliant Facebook ads. Since 2011, Facebook has disabled at least 70 accounts linked to
C.
Harm to Facebook
Facebook has not been paid for more than $340,000 worth of ads purchased by Grunin
through unlawfully created or acquired accounts. Compl. 53. Furthermore, Grunins unlawful
marketing activities have tainted the Facebook experience for Facebook users and especially for
the advertisers whose accounts he hijacked. Compl. 54. As a direct and proximate cause of
10
Grunins deceptive advertising and fraudulent advertising accounts, Facebook has suffered and
11
continues to suffer harm to its reputation and goodwill. Compl. 55. Facebook spent significant
12
engineering and other employee resources investigating, blocking, and documenting Grunins
13
activities in order to prevent further harm. Compl. 56. Facebook will submit declarations
14
detailing its harm after judgment has been entered pursuant to the Courts October 22, 2014
15
16
D.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Grunin Has Failed to Answer and Has Abused the Judicial Process by Filing
Threatening and Nonsensical Documents With the Court
Facebook personally served Grunin with the Complaint and Summons on May 22, 2014,
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A). (Dkt. 13.) Grunins responsive pleading was due
on June 12, 2014. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Grunin did not file a responsive pleading by June 12,
2014, or anytime thereafter, and the Court entered Default in the case on June 23, 2014. (Dkt.
22.).
Instead of filing responsive pleadings, Grunin filed numerous documents that ignore the
Courts rules and procedures and make baseless demands of Facebook, its counsel, and the Court,
including, for example, that Facebook pay him $1 million for the unauthorized use of his name
in pleadings (Dkt. 8) and that the Court be fined $500,000 for issuing rulings adverse to Grunin or
otherwise intervening in this case (Dkt. 27). In total, Grunin filed fourteen documents with the
28
-5-
Court, each of which violates the Courts rules and ignores the legitimacy and seriousness of this
lawsuit. See Dkts. 8, 10, 17, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39.
Sometime in July, Grunin hired counsel who was authorized to practice in California, and
filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default (Dkt. 44) on August 8, 2014. Grunin did not
personally appear at the hearing to consider the motion. The Court denied that motion on October
30, 2014, but gave Grunin one last chance to move to set aside entry of default if he agreed to
file, by noon on November 13, 2014, a declaration agreeing, under penalty of perjury, to pay in
advance all of Facebooks reasonable attorneys fees and expenses incurred in response to Mr.
Grunins improper filings to date, promises to cease making such filings, and establishes factual
10
innocence of the allegations in the complaint. (Dkt. 65.) Since that hearing, Grunin has not filed
11
12
13
The above is a brief summary of the facts. Facebook incorporates all other facts and
allegations in its Complaint.
14
15
16
III.
A.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
17
the complaint are taken as true. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 91718 (9th
18
Cir. 1987). Here, as set forth below, Facebook is entitled to judgment on each of its four claims
19
for relief.
20
21
22
1.
Under California law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of
23
a contract; (2) the plaintiffs performance of the contract . . .; (3) the defendants breach; and (4)
24
the resulting harm to the plaintiff. Perez-Encinas v. Amerus Life Ins. Co., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1127,
25
26
Access to and use of Facebooks websites and services are governed by and subject to
27
Facebooks Terms, which Grunin accepted and which were binding on him at all times relevant to
28
Facebooks Complaint. Compl. 5960. Facebook performed all conditions, covenants, and
-6-
promises required of it in accordance with Facebooks Terms. Compl. 61. Grunin knowingly,
willfully, repeatedly, and systematically breached Facebooks Terms by, among other things,
running deceptive ads, transferring accounts without Facebooks permission, providing false
information to Facebook, continuing to access Facebook after revocation of his access privileges,
and failing to pay for advertisements. Compl. 63. Grunins breaches directly and proximately
caused and continue to cause irreparable harm and injury to Facebook by, among other things,
damaging Facebooks reputation with its legitimate advertisers, and preventing Facebook from
collecting advertising revenue for ads shown to Facebook users. Compl. 64.
Facebook has established each element of its breach of contract claim. It is therefore
10
entitled to default judgment on the claim. See, e.g., Andrew Smith Co. v. Pauls Pak, Inc., 754 F.
11
Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (party sufficiently alleged claim for breach of contract where it
12
13
b.
14
15
Grunin has violated two prongs of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030
(CFAA)): 1030(a)(2) and 1030(a)(4).
16
The elements of a cause of action under 1030(a)(2) of the CFAA are that the defendant
17
(1) intentionally accessed a computer, (2) without authorization or exceeding authorized access,
18
and that he (3) thereby obtained information (4) from any protected computer (if the conduct
19
involved an interstate or foreign communication), and (5) there was loss to one or more persons
20
during any one-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value. Grunin violated 1030(a)(2) by
21
accessing Facebooks protected computers without authorization after his license to access
22
Facebook was revoked and obtaining information about the advertising accounts of other users
23
that he had hijacked from Facebooks protected computers, causing a loss to Facebook. Compl.
24
67.
25
The elements of a cause of action under 1030(a)(4) are that the defendant: (1) accessed a
26
protected computer, (2) without authorization, or exceeding authorization, (3) knowingly and
27
with intent to defraud, and by doing so (4) furthered the intended fraud and obtained something
28
of value, causing (5) a loss to one or more persons during any one-year period aggregating at least
-7-
Facebooks protected computers1 after his access had been revoked and, knowingly, and with
intent to defraud, impersonating agents of legitimate companies to obtain credit to run deceptive
ads. Compl. 68. Through his unauthorized access, Grunin obtained things of value, including
the ability to run advertising that he would not otherwise have been able to run, and also credit
and payment for referral traffic and other advertising accounts, and caused a loss to Facebook.
Compl. 68.
8
9
Grunins activities caused irreparable and incalculable harm and injuries to Facebook, and
unless enjoined, his conduct will cause further irreparable and incalculable injury for which
10
Facebook has no adequate remedy at law. Compl. 68. Facebook has verified damages of more
11
than $340,000 during a one-year period resulting from Grunins unauthorized access and abuse of
12
13
Facebook has pleaded each of the elements of the CFAA under both 1030(a)(2) and
14
(a)(4). Accordingly, Facebook is entitled to default judgment on its CFAA claims. See, e.g.,
15
Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d at 103839 (defendants violated CFAA where they
16
accessed Facebook without authorization by, inter alia, circumventing technical barriers to access
17
Facebook, obtained information from the Facebook website, and damaged Facebook in excess of
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c.
The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code
502(c), provides for a private right of action against anyone who does any one of the following:
(1) knowingly accesses and uses any computer without permission in order to defraud; (2)
knowingly accesses and uses any data from a computer network without permission; (3)
knowingly uses computer services without permission; or (4) knowingly accesses any computer
network without permission. Cal. Penal Code 502(c), (e)(1). Parties act without permission
1
Facebooks computers are protected computers under 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2) because they are
used in and affect interstate and foreign commerce and communication. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. Power
Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 103839 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
-8-
when they circumvent[ ] technical or code-based barriers in place to restrict or bar a users
access. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d at 1036. The elements of 502 do not differ
materially from the necessary elements of the CFAA. Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 725 F.
After Facebook revoked his permission to access Facebook and took technical measures
to block his access, Grunin nevertheless circumvented those technical measures and intentionally
accessed Facebooks proprietary computers. Compl. 73. Grunin knowingly and without
permission used Facebooks proprietary computer systems to deceive Facebook and to obtain
unauthorized advertising accounts by fraud. Compl. 74. Grunin did this by impersonating
10
agents of legitimate companies and obtaining credit to run his deceptive ads as if they were
11
posted, and would be paid for, by someone else. Compl. 74. Grunins actions have directly,
12
proximately, and irreparably harmed Facebook by, among other things, causing Facebook to
13
place ads for which Grunin did not pay and by requiring Facebook to expend resources to
14
investigate his unauthorized access to and abuse of Facebook and to prevent such access or abuse
15
from recurring. Compl. 75. Grunin caused irreparable harm and injuries to Facebook, and
16
unless enjoined, his conduct will continue to cause such injury for which Facebook has no
17
18
Facebook has established the elements of the California Comprehensive Computer Data
19
Access and Fraud Act. Accordingly, Facebook requests that judgment be entered in its favor on
20
this claim. See Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d at 103638 (defendants violated 502
21
22
d.
23
To prove fraud under California law, a litigant must establish: (a) a misrepresentation
24
25
defraud, i.e. to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. Agosta v.
26
Astor, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 565, 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation
27
omitted).
28
-9-
1
2
3
Using the false alias Kayla Stewart to pose as an employee of Marketing Drive
with intent to defraud Facebook into creating new lines of advertising accounts for
Compl. 31;
7
8
into the Canadian market and needed ten new advertising accounts and a line of
10
11
12
Using the false alias Colan Neilson to contact a Facebook sales representative by
13
support Neilsons request for additional advertising accounts and a line of credit,
14
Compl. 41;
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Grunin intended that Facebook would rely on his misrepresentations so that he could increase the
spending limits of Facebook advertising accounts that he had compromised and controlled.
Facebook acted in justifiable reliance on Grunins false representations by providing him with
new advertising accounts and increased credit on the advertising accounts he had hijacked.
Compl. 82. As a result of Facebooks reliance on Grunins intentionally false and deceptive
conduct, Facebook provided more than $340,000 worth of advertising on its site for which it has
not been paid. Facebook has also incurred expenses to identify Grunins fraud, his multiple
unauthorized accounts, and his deceptive ads. Compl. 83. Grunins intentionally false and
-10-
deceptive conduct has tainted the Facebook experience for Facebook users, including those users
who were shown his deceptive ads, and the Facebook advertising customers whose accounts were
charged for ads that Grunin ran on them. Compl. 54; Facebook Decl. X. Facebook has
suffered and continues to suffer harm to its reputation and goodwill as a result. Compl. 83.
Grunin caused irreparable harm and injuries to Facebook and, unless enjoined, his conduct will
cause further irreparable injury for which Facebook has no adequate remedy at law. Compl. 84.
Facebook has established the elements of its fraud claim and is therefore entitled to judgment.
8
9
2.
Facebook Has Met the Legal Standard for Entry of Default Judgment
The Ninth Circuit has enumerated seven factors to determine whether default judgment is
10
appropriate: (a) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff if judgment is not entered, (b) the
11
merits of the plaintiffs substantive claim, (c) the sufficiency of the complaint, (d) the sum of
12
money at stake in the action, (e) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (f) whether
13
the default was due to excusable neglect, and (g) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules
14
of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F.
15
Supp. 2d 1039, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing and adopting the factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782
16
F.2d 1470, 147172 (9th Cir. 1986)). In applying this discretionary standard, default judgments
17
are more often granted than denied. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431, 432
18
(C.D. Cal. 1999). In this case, each of the factors weighs heavily in favor of granting default
19
20
21
a.
Possibility of Prejudice
Without entry of judgment, Facebook would be without recourse for recovery against
22
Grunin, and Grunin would unfairly profit from his illegal and fraudulent schemes against
23
Facebook. Moreover, absent default judgment, Grunin would be allowed to benefit from his
24
blatant disregard for this lawsuit and, more broadly, his rejection of our countrys legal system
25
and the rule of law. See, e.g., Quinstreet, Inc. v. AdvisorWorld.com, Inc., No. C 10-04532 WHA,
26
2011 WL 1636918 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) (Alsup, J.) (the first Eitel factor is satisfied where
27
the plaintiff would be without a remedy absent a default judgment); Landstar Ranger, Inc. v.
28
-11-
Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (same); Phillip Morris USA Inc. v.
Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 499 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (same).
3
4
b.
As set forth in detail above, Facebook has pleaded facts to establish all the elements of
each of its claims. See, e.g., Schenker, Inc. v. Predator Mogulwear Inc., No. C 07-01795 WHA,
2007 WL 4556915, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007) (Alsup, J.) (well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint regarding liability are deemed true (except for the amount of damages)); Landstar
Ranger, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d at 921 (second Eitel factor satisfied where plaintiffs complaint
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
c.
Facebooks Complaint sets forth detailed facts about Grunins unlawful activities, and
Grunin has produced no credible evidence to dispute them. In fact, the Court expressly invited
Grunin to tender a meritorious defense in its latest Order, provided that such a defense was
specific and under oath (see Dkt. 65 at 5), but Grunin declined to do so. This is simply not a case
of an absentee litigant; Grunin has filed numerous documents and moved to set aside entry of
Default. But, in the end, his refusal to file a declaration on November 13, 2014 demonstrates that
he cannot, under oath, deny the facts alleged in Facebooks Complaint. Accordingly, there is no
factual dispute. See, e.g., Schenker, Inc. 2007 WL 4556915, at *2; Landstar Ranger, Inc., 725 F.
Supp. 2d at 92122 (no factual disputes exist where plaintiff supports its claim and defendant has
made no attempt to challenge the accuracy of the allegations set forth in the complaint); Phillip
Morris USA Inc., 219 F.R.D. at 500 (same).
d.
This factor appears less relevant at this stage because the Court has indicated that it will
consider the amount of permissible damage at a later date (pursuant to Dkt. 61). In any event,
Facebook seeks damages that are directly related to the harm caused by Grunins unlawful
activity. Where the recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by the defendant, this
28
-12-
factor supports default judgment. Bennett v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., 226 F. Appx 725, 728
e.
There can be no question that this factor is satisfied. As set forth above, Grunin was well
aware of the existence of this lawsuit, chose to hire a nonlawyer to represent him and
repeatedly rejected the Courts authority. Clearly his default was not the result of excusable
neglect. See Schenker, Inc., 2007 WL 4556915, at *2 (factor satisfied where defendant engaged
in delaying tactics and disregarded a court order to obtain counsel); Phillip Morris USA Inc., 219
10
f.
11
The Court has held that although federal policy certainly favors decisions on the merits,
12
default judgment is proper where the defendant refuses to litigate. APL Co. Pte., Ltd. v. CNJ
13
Intl, Inc., No. C 12-04758 WHA, 2013 WL 622357, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013) (Alsup, J.);
14
PepsiCo Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (same). Facebooks
15
Complaint contained specific and detailed facts to support Facebooks allegations, and Grunin
16
simply refused to participateeven after he was given multiple warnings and chances to do so,
17
including the Courts most recent invitation to submit a meritorious defense. (Dkt. 65 at 5.)
18
Grunins behavior both against Facebook and the Court itself supports and justifies granting
19
20
21
22
23
B.
24
Where the factual allegations of the complaint provide sufficient legal basis for entry of a
25
default judgment, the court then conducts an inquiry to ascertain the amount of damages.
26
TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 91718 (9th Cir. 1987). As explained above,
27
Facebook has suffered damage in excess of $340,000. Facebook is also entitled to punitive
28
-13-
damages for Grunins fraud. See Cal. Civ. Code 3294. Facebook will submit declarations to
support the amount of its damages, in accordance with the Courts October 22, 2014 Order (Dkt.
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code 502(e)(2), provides that
in any private action brought under Section 502(e) of the statute, the court may award reasonable
attorneys fees. Attorneys fees are also available for CFAA claims. See NCMIC Fin. Corp. v.
Artino, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 106566 (S.D. Iowa 2009) (Although attorneys fees in
prosecuting a CFAA action do not count toward the $5000 statutory threshold, attorneys fees
10
incurred responding to the actual CFAA violation to place the plaintiff in their ex ante position
11
are permissible as costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation, including the
12
13
LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 646 (4th Cir. 2009)); cf. Multiven, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d at 895. At the
14
Courts invitation, Facebook will submit evidence of its attorneys fees in this action.
15
C.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cal. Penal Code 502(e)(1) (providing for injunctive relief). See, e.g., Creative Computing v.
Getloaded.com LLC, 386 F.3d 930, 93738 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding broad injunction entered
by trial court in action for violations of the CFAA); Facebook Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., No.
08-CV-5780-LHK, 2013 WL 5372341, at *1416 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (granting injunctive
relief under, inter alia, the CFAA and 502). Facebook will provide additional briefing on the
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Facebook respectfully requests that the Court (1) enter
default judgment against Grunin on each of Facebooks claims, (2) enter a permanent injunction
10
preventing Grunin from accessing or using any Facebook-owned or -operated website, service,
11
platform, or application, from advertising to Facebook users, and from contacting Facebook
12
employees, and (3) consider briefing and declarations submitted by Facebook regarding the
13
amount of damages Facebook seeks (see Dkt. 61), enter an order awarding Facebook
14
compensatory and punitive damages and costs related to Facebooks internal expenses and
15
attorneys fees spent investigating, remediating, and preventing Grunins unlawful activities.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEGAL122899578.11
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
FACEBOOK, INC.,
13
14
15
v.
MARTIN GRUNIN,
16
Defendant.
17
18
This matter has come before the Court on Facebooks Motion for Default Judgment.
19
After considering the papers and all evidence submitted and the arguments of counsel, if any, and
20
21
22
GRANTED, and that judgment will be entered against Martin Grunin for each of Facebooks
23
claims for relief after the Court has determined (1) the appropriate level of compensatory and
24
punitive damages for each of the claims and (2) costs and attorneys fees related to the
25
investigation and remediation of Grunins activities. Facebook shall submit a brief with
26
declarations to support any damages, costs, and attorneys fees flowing from the well-pled
27
allegations in the operative complaint. Such pleadings must be filed with the Court no later than
28
[_____________, 2014].
LEGAL124255122.1
-1-
1
2
Martin Grunin. Facebook shall submit a brief with declarations regarding the scope of such an
injunction and provide a proposed injunction. Facebooks additional submission must be filed
6
7
8
By: __________________________________
Hon. William H. Alsup
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Presented by:
/s/Judith B. Jennison
Judith B. Jennison, Bar No. 165929
JJennison@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Facebook, Inc.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2LEGAL124255122.1