1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MOONBUG ENTERTAINMENT Case No. 21-cv-06536-EMC LIMITED, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT AND v. RESTRAINING ORDER 10 BABYBUS (FUJIAN) NETWORK 11 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, et al., Docket No. 714

12 Defendants.

13 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14 On July 27, 2023, a jury found that Babybus infringed Moonbug’s registered copyrights to 15 Cocomelon’s JJ character, family, and animal characters for 36 out of 39 works at issue. Docket 16 No. 579. Further, the jury found Babybus liable for copyright infringement and misrepresentation 17 under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Id. On October 30, 18 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Moonbug in the amount of $17,718,114. Docket No. 19 627. Later, on January 10, 2024, the Court issued a writ of execution in the amount of 20 $17,908,246.35 with daily interest thereafter in the amount of $2,640.72. Docket No. 675. The 21 Court denied Babybus’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law on May 15, 2024. 22 Docket No. 680. On May 23, 2024, Moonbug filed a motion for an assignment of assets and a 23 restraining order, which the Court denied without prejudice. Docket No. 682; Docket No. 711. 24 Now, Moonbug moves for an emergency assignment of assets from Babybus to Moonbug 25 and a restraining order to restrict Babybus. For the following reason, the Court GRANTS 26 Moonbug’s motion and orders the assignment of Babybus’s certain rights to payments from the 27 following third parties from Babybus to Moonbug. It also GRANTS a restraining order to prevent 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Assignment 3 1. Legal Standard 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) states that the federal court must follow state law 5 when applying the procedures for the execution of judgment. Under California Code of Civil 6 Procedure section 708.510, a judgment creditor may ask the court to “order the judgment debtor to 7 assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether 8 or not the right is conditioned on future developments.” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a). Section 9 708.510 “provides an optional procedure for reaching assignable forms of property that are subject 10 to a levy, such as accounts receivables, general intangibles, judgments, and instruments.” § 11 708.510, Leg. Comm. Cmts. Section 708.510 is a remedy that can be “used alone or in 12 conjunction with other remedies. Id. Judgment creditors have the choice to exercise this “optional 13 procedure for reaching assignable forms of property that are subject to a levy,” and this 14 measurement of collection can be used “alone or in conjunction with other remedies provided.” 15 Id. 16 An assignment is available “where a judgment creditor can identify a person or entity who 17 is obligated to make payment to the judgment debtor, and where that right to payment is 18 assignable.” Icho v. PacketSwitch.com, Inc.,

, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012). To 19 successfully request an assignment, the judgment creditor must “describe [the source of the right 20 to the payment] with sufficient detail so that [d]efendants can file a claim of exception or other 21 opposition” even though the statute does not require “detailed evidentiary support.” Id. at *1. 22 From this identification, the Court can grant an assignment if the judgment creditor “identified 23 specific entities that are reasonably believed to be obligated to make assignable payments to” the 24 judgment debtor. Blue Grass Mfg. Co. of Lexington, Inc. v. Beyond A Blade, Flush-Cut, & Paws 25 Off Tools, LLC.,

, *10 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Further, while the statute 26 allows the Court to assign future payments, the statute requires “some degree of concreteness to 27 the expected payment.” Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalski,

, *2 (N.D. Cal. 1 obligated to make payments, then the “court has broad discretion in determining whether to order 2 an assignment.” Telecom Asset Mgmt., LLC v. FiberLight, LLC.,

, *1 (N.D. Cal 3 2016). There is no requirement for an extraordinary showing in order to obtain an assignment. 4 2. Third-Party Entities and Other Platforms Moonbug Identifies for an Assignment 5 Moonbug’s identification of YouTube, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, and The 6 Roku Channel and the accompanying evidence establishes that Babybus uploaded content on these 7 platforms. See Docket No. 714 at 6-10. Generally, an assignment can be granted “where a 8 judgment creditor can identify a person or entity who is obligated to make payment to the 9 judgment debtor.” Icho,

at *1. In Blue Grass, the court granted an assignment 10 order to the judgment creditor because the judgment creditor identified the defendants’ products as 11 “available for sale on Amazon.com” and other similar websites. Blue Grass, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12 70556 at *7. Because these platforms were reasonably “believed to sell” the defendant’s products 13 based on their existence on these sites, the court granted an assignment order. Id. at *7, *10. 14 Similarly, based on the nature of these platforms, the Court finds it “reasonably believed” that the 15 existence of Babybus content on YouTube, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, and The 16 Roku Channel indicates that these platforms are generating a source of compensation to Babybus, 17 payments that may properly be subject to an assignment order. See Blue Grass, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 70556 at *1; Docket No. 714 at 6-10. 19 Moonbug has identified PayPal to be a third-party obligor with assignable future payments. 20 See Docket No. 714 at 9. In Cadence Design Sys. v. Pounce Consulting, Inc., the judgment debtor 21 used “UCF as an account receivable vendor and, accordingly, directs its customers to pay UCF.” 22 Cadence Design Sys. v. Pounce Consulting, Inc.,

, *6 (N.D. Cal. 23 2019). Similar to the accounts receivable vendor in Cadence Design, Moonbug has established 24 that Babybus’s website directs VIP payments for Baby Panda World through PayPal. See 25 Cadence Design,

at *9; Docket No. 714 at 9; Docket No. 683 at 26 Ex. 57. Thus, the Court reasonably believes that PayPal is a third party from which an assignable, 27 future payment is owed to Babybus. See Blue Grass, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70556 at *1. 1 Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tencent Computer System 2 Co., Ltd., IRONSOURCE, Beijing Yulotong Network Technology Co., Ltd, and Japan Babybus 3 Co., Ltd. as “accounts receivables with significant arrears at the end of the year.” Docket No. 684, 4 Ex. 2 at 5. In Icho, the court denied an assignment order to “future proceeds ‘arising out of [the 5 judgment debtor’s] activities as an entertainer, television and theatrical performer, singer’” and 6 other similar jobs because these were only “future, hypothetical performances.” Icho,

4343834 at *1, *2. In contrast to a “hypothetical” performance, Moonbug has produced 8 documents identifying payments from these third parties in Babybus’s own financial disclosures. 9 See id.; Docket No. 684, Ex. 2 at 5. Although these receivables were for 2019, the existence of 10 prior payments provides “some degree of concreteness” that Babybus may continue to receive 11 revenues from these entities, revenues that qualify for an assignment. See Icho,

4343834 at *2. 13 The evidence Moonbug provides in the case of iQiyi, Toutiao Pangolian, Youku, and 14 Himalaya identifies these entities as third-party licensees to Babybus’s content. Docket No. 714 at 15 10. In Mentor Capital, Inc. v. Bhang Chocolate Co., the court reasoned that section 708.510 16 permits an assignment of licensing fees as the statute’s comments identify “Royalties,” “Payments 17 due from a patent or copyright,” “accounts receivable,” and “general intangibles” as assignable 18 property. Mentor Capital, Inc. v. Bhang Chocolate Co.,

, *7 (N.D.

). Here, Moonbug provides Babybus’s own financial documents identifying iQiyi, 20 Toutiao Pangolian, Youku, and Himalaya as third-party licensees, which creates “some degree of 21 concreteness to the expected payment.” Icho,

at *2; Docket No. 683, Ex. 42 at 22 8. 23 Similarly, Moonbug also points to evidence that establishes Sohu, MangoTV, Wasu TV, 24 LeTV, and PPTV as platforms that showed Babybus’s content online and disseminated through 25 the television platforms. Docket No. 684, Ex. 1. Similar to “royalties” and “payments due from a 26 patent or copyright,” Moonbug points to a list of TV platforms from Babybus’s financial 27 documents that were established during the litigation; this list shows Super JOJO seasons and 1 Mentor Capital,

at *7; Docket No. 684, Ex. 1. The Court thus 2 reasonably believes that Babybus expects payment from these platforms for the use of Babybus’s 3 intellectual property. See Blue Grass, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *10. 4 Although the statute does not require “detailed evidentiary support” to establish proof of 5 payment, the Court finds Moonbug’s evidence to be lacking in the case of Instagram and 6 Facebook. See Icho,

at *1. While Moonbug does establish the existence of a 7 Babybus Facebook and Instagram account, the Court needs more evidence to establish the 8 existence of payments from Instagram or Facebook to Babybus. See Docket No. 714 at 9. The 9 fact of an account does not inherently suggest monetary obligations owed to Babybus. Unlike 10 other platforms like Amazon or Spotify where an expected payment can be “reasonably believed,” 11 Instagram and Facebook are not necessarily “obligated to make payments” to Babybus. See Blue 12 Grass, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70556 at *7. Absent a further showing, Moonbug has “failed to identify 13 any specific source of money to be assigned” from Facebook or Instagram through the existence 14 of Babybus Facebook and Instagram accounts alone. See Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. 15 Briano,

, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Docket No. 714 at 9. 16 Further, the Court cannot extend an assignment to Singapore Babybus, Pte. Ltd. because 17 Moonbug has failed to establish an expected payment from the entity. While Moonbug has shown 18 that Babybus identifies Singapore BabyBus Pte. Ltd. as a subsidiary of Babybus, this does not 19 establish an assignable right of payment from this entity to Babybus. Docket No. 714 at 6. In 20 Legal Additions, the court rejected an assignment over third parties that only had an association 21 with the defendant through book reviews and being “named on the website” of the judgment 22 debtor. Legal Additions,

at *2. The court found that these identifications “say 23 nothing about whether or not the people or entities owe [the judgment debtor] money.”

While 24 the statute does not require “detailed evidentiary support,” the motion must establish more than an 25 association between the entities like Moonbug has shown here. See id.; Docket No. 714 at 6. 26 Because the identification of Singapore BabyBus Pte. Ltd as a subsidiary of Babybus does not 27 establish the likelihood of payments owed to Babybus, absent further evidence, the Court does not 1

at *2. 2 Similarly, Moonbug cannot be granted an assignment from payments from Fuzhou Zhi 3 Yong Information Technology Co., Ltd. because the information provided does not clearly 4 identify that Fuzhou Zhi Yong Information Technology Co., Ltd. has a source of revenue owed to 5 Babybus. See Docket No. 714 at 6. While “[r]evenues from monetization of Defendants’ content 6 on YouTube” could be a clear establishment of expected future payments, the evidence provided 7 to the Court needs further clarification and establishment to meet this standard. Docket No. 714 at 8 6; see Icho,

at *1. 9 The Court orders an assignment of Babybus’s right to payments from Japan Babybus Co., 10 Ltd., YouTube, Apple, Google, PayPal, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, Baidu, The Roku Channel, 11 Tencent, iQiyi, Toutiao Pangolin, Youku, Himalaya, Sohu, MangoTV, Wasu TV, LeTV, PPTV, 12 ironSource Ltd., and Beijing Youletong Network Technology Co. to Moonbug. 13 B. Restraining Order 14 The Court has established an assignment of Babybus’s right of payment from Japan 15 Babybus Co., Ltd., YouTube, Apple, Google, PayPal, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, Baidu, The 16 Roku Channel, Tencent, iQiyi, Toutiao Pangolin, Youku, Himalaya, Sohu, MangoTV, Wasu TV, 17 LeTV, PPTV, ironSource Ltd., and Beijing Youletong Network Technology Co. To prevent 18 Babybus from avoiding enforcement of this order, the Court also grants a restraining order on 19 Babybus to prevent Babybus from further assigning the right to payment from Japan Babybus Co., 20 Ltd., Apple, Google, PayPal, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, Baidu, The Roku Channel, Tencent, 21 iQiyi, Toutiao Pangolin, Youku, Himalaya, Sohu, MangoTV, Wasu TV, LeTV, PPTV, ironSource 22 Ltd., and Beijing Youletong Network Technology Co. 23 Once a Court has found a reason for an assignment order, the threshold for a grant of a 24 restraining order is “relatively low.” Telecom,

at *2 (citing Legal Additions 25 LLC v. Kowalski,

, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2011)). When a court has ordered an 26 assignment, a restraining order can be proper if the “judgment debtors have refused to voluntarily 27 satisfy the judgment against them and have avoided making any payment.” Cadence Design, ] has failed to make any payment on the judgment and has “refused to voluntarily satisfy the 2 || judgment” by avoiding depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and failing to motion for a 3 stay or post a bond contrary to its earlier representations to the Court. See id.; Docket No. 714 at 4 || 4. Moreover, the Court orders this restraining order to stop Babybus from changing the account 5 || names of any of the above-mentioned accounts or reassigning the rights of those accounts or 6 || platforms to anyone else. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 Moonbug’s motion for assignment and retraining order is granted as to the third-party 9 || obligors identified herein. 10 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12

13 Dated: September 30, 2024

14

15

EDW M. CHEN = 16 United States District Judge

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28