OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for the entry of default judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion as to its federal and one of its state claims, enter a permanent injunction, and award Plaintiffs statutory damages. The Court declines to enter a post-judgment asset freeze.I. Procedural BackgroundOn January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint along with an ex parte Application for (1) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); (2) an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) why a preliminary injunction should not issue; (3) an asset restraining order; (4) an order authorizing alternative service by electronic mail; and (5) an order authorizing expedited discovery against Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 8-23. Also on that date, the Court entered the TRO, set an OTSC Hearing, restrained Defendants’ assets, and authorized electronic service and expedited discovery. Dkt. No. 11; Dkt. No. 65 13. Relying on information obtained in third-party discovery, on February 6, 2018, Plaintiffs served copies of the TRO, Summons, Complaint, and all papers filed therewith on the Defendants. Dkt. No. 65 15-18, Ex. C. On February 8, 2018, the Court held an OTSC Hearing. See Dkt. No. 65 19. No Defendants appeared and the Court entered a preliminary injunction order (“PI Order”) against all Defendants mirroring the terms of the TRO. See Dkt. No. 65
19-20. Plaintiffs served Defendants with the PI Order on February 9, 2018. Dkt. No. 65 21; Dkt. No. 28. Under the terms of the TRO, all Defendants’ deadlines to answer or otherwise respond were February 26, 2018. Dkt. No. 65 22; see Dkt. No. 5. Some did not do so, and on May 14, 2018, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they intended to seek default judgment against nonappearing Defendants. Dkt. No. 46. This Court ordered Plaintiffs to so file by June 29, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 45, 47. On May 15, 2018, Plaintiffs requested Clerks’ Certificates of Default, which they received on May 18, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 48-49; Dkt. No. 65, Ex. E. At the same time, litigation, an initial pretrial conference, and settlement discussions proceeded with respect to the appearing Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 29-47, 50-62.On June 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their motion for default judgment against the 45 Defendants they represent had not formally appeared or responded to the complaint as of that date (“the Defaulting Defendants”).1 Dkt. No. 63. In accordance with Rule 3.L of the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the motion for default judgment and supporting paperwork were also served on the Defaulting Defendants, and an affidavit of service filed. Dkt. No. 66.On February 7, 2019, the Court ordered additional briefing regarding the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. No. 77. On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed that briefing and supporting documents. Dkt. Nos. 80-81.II. Factual BackgroundPlaintiffs WowWee Group Limited, WowWee Canada, Inc., and WowWee USA, Inc. (“WowWee” or “Plaintiffs”) are designers, developers, marketers, and distributors of robotic toys and consumer entertainment products, including interactive hand-held robotic toys known as Fingerlings Products. Compl.
