Alexandre Siniouguine v. Mediachase Ltd et al, No. 2:2011cv06113 - Document 188 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter.The Final Judgment, Permanent Injunction and Settlement Agreement shall be enforceable against the Parties for any acts that violate the Final Judgment, the Permanent Injunction and/or the Settlement Agreement, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce them (see attached Final Judgment for further details). The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 185 . (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alexandre Siniouguine v. Mediachase Ltd et al Doc. 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRE SINIOUGUINE, individually, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CV11-6113 JFW (AGRx) Honorable John F. Walter FINAL JUDGMENT MEDIACHASE, LTD., a Delaware corporation; CHRIS LUTZ, individually; JULIE MAGBOJOS, individually; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 18 19 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT LOS ANGELES Dockets.Justia.com 1 Following entry of this Court’s June 11, 2012 Order Granting Mediachase, 2 Ltd., Chris Lutz and Julie Magbojos’ Motion for: (1) Summary Judgment on 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint and Counterclaims; Mediachase’s Declaratory Relief Claims; 4 and (2) Partial Summary Judgment on Mediachase’s Copyright Infringement 5 Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 130) (the “Summary Judgment Order”), Plaintiff/ 6 Counter-Defendant/Counterclaimant Alexandre Siniouguine (“Siniouguine”) and 7 Defendant/Counterclaimant/Counter-Defendant Mediachase, Ltd. and Defendants 8 Chris Lutz and Julie Magbojos (“Mediachase”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have 9 settled this action as set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, and 10 contingent upon Court’s entry of this Final Judgment, the Parties’ stipulated 11 Permanent Injunction and the Stipulation Re: Dismissal in the manner described 12 below. The Parties have waived findings of fact and conclusions of law with 13 respect thereto, and have waived their right to appeal from this Final Judgment. 14 The Parties have stipulated to entry of Judgment on the following terms, and the 15 Court hereby enters Judgment as follows: 16 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Mediachase on all claims and 17 counterclaims by Siniouguine. As more fully described in the Summary Judgment 18 Order [Docket No. 130], the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference, 19 this Court has determined as a matter of law that Mediachase, not Siniouguine, 20 owns the copyrights in and to the eCommerce Framework Program, Copyright 21 Registration No. TX 0007329315 (“ECF Program”) and Calendar.NET Program, 22 Copyright Registration No. TX 0007396494 (“Calendar Program”) that are the 23 subjects of this action; 24 2. Judgment is entered in favor of Mediachase, and against Siniouguine, 25 on Mediachase’s Counterclaims for (1) declaratory judgment of Mediachase’s 26 copyright ownership in the ECF Program; (2) declaratory judgment that 27 Siniouguine’s Copyright Registration for the ECF Program (TX 0007446342) is 28 invalid; (3) declaratory judgment of Mediachase’s copyright ownership in the M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 2 FINAL JUDGMENT 1 Calendar Program; and (4) declaratory judgment that Siniouguine’s Copyright 2 Registration for the Calendar Program (TX 0007412872) is invalid. As more fully 3 described in the Summary Judgment Order, this Court has determined that, because 4 Mediachase owns the copyrights in and to the ECF Program and the Calendar 5 Program at issue in this action, Siniouguine’s Copyright Registration Nos. TX 6 0007446342 and TX 0007412872 for these programs are invalid; 7 8 9 3. The Court shall enter the Permanent Injunction which the Parties have jointly requested that the Court enter: 4. The Final Judgment, Permanent Injunction and Settlement Agreement 10 shall be enforceable against the Parties for any acts that violate the Final Judgment, 11 the Permanent Injunction and/or the Settlement Agreement, and the Court shall 12 retain jurisdiction to enforce them; 13 5. While the Parties have executed a Stipulation for Entry of Monetary 14 Judgment in favor of Mediachase and against Siniouguine, Mediachase will not file 15 or otherwise apply to have such Monetary Judgment entered unless and until the 16 Court deteimines that Siniouguine violated the terms of the Permanent Injunction. 17 Mediachase must seek entry of the Monetary Judgment solely by regularly noticed 18 motion; however, nothing contained herein shall limit Mediachase’s right to move 19 for expedited relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary 20 Injunction or other extraordinary remedy, with or without notice, to enjoin any act 21 by Siniouguine. Additionally, nothing contained herein shall limit Siniouguine’s 22 right to object to the enforceability of the Monetary Judgment if Mediachase fails to 23 comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; 24 25 26 6. The Court’s Summary Judgment Order, this Final Judgment and the Permanent Injunction are binding and final, and are non-appealable; 7. Siniouguine is hereby Ordered to destroy all copies of the ECF 27 Program, the Calendar Program, and any other Mediachase copyrighted works 28 existing as of June 28, 2012, to the extent he has not already done so; M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 3 FINAL JUDGMENT 1 8. Based upon the Parties’ Stipulation For Dismissal, the Court will 2 dismiss: (a) with prejudice Mediachase’s remaining counterclaims against 3 Siniouguine for: (1) copyright infringement; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets; 4 (3) breach of contract (assignment); (4) breach of contract (non-disclosure); (5) 5 fraud; (6) conversion; and (7) violation of California Business & Professions Code 6 § 17200; and (b) without prejudice Mediachase’s remaining Counterclaims against 7 Counter-Defendant VirtoSoftware for: (1) copyright infringement; (2) 8 misappropriation of trade secrets; (3) conversion; and (4) violation of California 9 Business & Professions Code § 17200. The provisions of Rule 41(d) of the Federal 10 Rules of Civil Procedure shall be waived in connection with this dismissal without 11 prejudice only as to VirtoSoftware, as Mediachase has reserved its rights and 12 remedies against Counter-Defendant VirtoSoftware; 13 14 9. This Final Judgment shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns; 15 10. In any action or proceeding based upon an allegation that a party has 16 violated the Final Judgment, the Permanent Injunction or the Parties’ Settlement 17 Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its reasonable 18 attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs incurred in connection with the action or 19 proceeding, without waiver or limitation of any additional remedies or relief to 20 which the Parties shall be entitled; 21 11. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Final Judgment, Permanent 22 Injunction, Stipulation for Entry of Monetary Judgment, and Stipulation re: 23 Dismissal, and any disputes relating thereto. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 4 FINAL JUDGMENT 1 12. The Parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 2 3 4 Dated: _October 4, 2012 5 6 Submitted By: 7 ________ The Honorable JOHN F. WALTER United States District Judge Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Shari Mulrooney Wollman Adrianne E. Marshack 8 9 12 By: /s/ Shari Mulrooney Wollman Shari Mulrooney Wollman Attorneys for Mediachase, Ltd., Chris Lutz and Julie Magbojos 13 and 10 11 14 15 16 Anderson & Associates Michael D. Anderson Nicholas Hnatiuk 17 18 19 20 By: /s/ Michael D. Anderson Michael D. Anderson Attorneys for Alexandre Siniouguine and Alexandre Siniouguine dba Virtosoftware 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 305055986.1 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 5 FINAL JUDGMENT
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
