Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Big Daddy Games, LLC v. Leja Distributing, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

July 29, 2016

BIG DADDY GAMES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
LEJA DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Big Daddy Games LLC, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Mayer, Nash Spindler Grimstad & McCracken LLP, Andrew L. Stevens, Nash Spindler Grimstad & McCracken LLP, Katelyn P. Sandfort, Nash Spindler Grimstad & McCracken LLP & Ryan R. Graff, Nash Spindler Grimstad & McCracken LLP.

          Weis Amusements LLC, Defendant, represented by N. Andrew Wagener, Bollenbeck Wagener Spaude & Fyfe SC.

          J&J Restaurants Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy John Casper, Murphy Desmond SC.

          Olson Enterprises & Investments Inc, Defendant, represented by N. Andrew Wagener, Bollenbeck Wagener Spaude & Fyfe SC.

          JW Vending, Defendant, Pro Se.

          JJ's Vending LLC, Defendant, represented by Jon R. Pinkert, Pinkert Law Firm LLP.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, Chief District Judge.

         In this copyright action, Big Daddy Games, LLC sued Leja Distributing, Inc. and several other defendants for infringement. It now moves for default judgment against five defendants who have failed to answer. For the reasons given below, the motion will be granted.

         It is clear that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendants in question. They have failed to respond and the clerk has already entered a default. The question now is what damages are appropriate. The Defendants in this action were distributors and end-users of machines built by Reel Spin Studios, and those machines infringed on the Plaintiff's copyrights. In June 2013 Reel Spin Studios' attorney sent cease-and-desist letters to the defendants, and the fourth amended complaint alleges that the Defendants' conduct was willful.

         Given the Defendants' failure to respond, the nature of their infringing activities are less than perfectly clear. However, the Plaintiff has amassed the following information:

• Defendant Brian Rowe purchased three Reel Spin boards for $1, 550 apiece in April 2013. (ECF No. 282-4.)
• Defendant Kono Investments leased two infringing games from Reel Spin. (ECF No. 282-1, ¶ 3.)
• Defendant SOS Marketing leased two devices produced by Reel Spin. (ECF No. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.