Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. Weber et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Default Judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the total amount of $4,000.00. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/25/2012.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Mitchell John Weber, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-00387-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
The court has before it Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants
16
Nicholas Lujan, Bill Bieze, and R.U.B., LLC (collectively, “defendants”) (doc. 23).
17
Plaintiff was granted the exclusive commercial right to distribute the Ultimate
18
Fighting Championship 127: BJ Penn v. Jon Fitch telecast on February 26, 2011 via closed19
circuit television (the “Program”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants willfully and unlawfully
20
intercepted and exhibited the Program at the Rub Sports Grill, a food and drink establishment
21
located in Mesa, Arizona, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (governing unlawful interception
22

of satellite signals).1 Although served, defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond

23
to the complaint. Plaintiff now seeks default judgment in the amount of $111,100.00, plus
24
attorney’s fees and costs.
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint also sought relief under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which governs the
unauthorized interception of cable communications. In its motion for default judgment,
however, it requests recovery under 47 U.S.C. § 605 only.

1

Section 605(a) of the Communications Act prohibits the unauthorized receipt and use

2

of radio communications, including satellite television signals, for one’s own benefit or the

3

benefit of another. DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008). Under § 605,

4

a plaintiff can recover either actual or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C).

5

Statutory damages are available “in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000" for

6

each violation “as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). To determine

7

an appropriate reward, the court balances the need to deter future illegal conduct against the

8

harm that will result to the defendants’ business if significant damages are assessed.

9

Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).

10

If a court “finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct

11

or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may exercise discretion and

12

increase the damages award by up to $100,000 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

13

“Courts use a variety of factors in determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to

14

enhanced damages for willfulness under § 605, including prior infringements, substantial

15

unlawful monetary gains, significant actual damages to the plaintiff, the defendant’s

16

advertising of the broadcast, and the defendant’s charging a cover charge or premiums for

17

food and drinks during the broadcast.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Guzman, 2008 WL

18

1924988, at *3 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2008).

19

Rub Sports Grill is a relatively small commercial establishment with a maximum

20

capacity of 80 to 100 people. According to plaintiff’s investigator, the Program was

21

broadcast on 12 televisions to no more than 42 people.2 Patrons were not charged a cover

22

fee.

23

By defaulting, defendants admit that they intercepted and exhibited the Program to

24

their patrons without obtaining a license from plaintiff in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, and

25

did so “willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or

26
2

27
28

Plaintiff incorrectly asserts in its motion that the Program was broadcast to 100
people. Plaintiff’s investigator averred, however, that there were no more than 42 patrons
in the establishment. Investigator Affidavit at 2.
-2-

1

private financial gain.” Compl., ¶ 30 (doc. 1). We conclude that statutory damages under

2

§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of $2,000 is appropriate. Plaintiff’s request for enhanced

3

damages of $100,000, however, is “manifestly excessive.” See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.

4

v. Streshly, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1139 (S. D. Cal 2009) (stating that the court will “not

5

indulge Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain the biggest judgment it can by filing cookie-cutter

6

pleadings”). The evidence does not support a larger award. The license fee would have cost

7

defendants only $1,100. There is no evidence of repeated violations by defendants, no

8

evidence that defendants advertised the Program to draw additional crowds, and no evidence

9

that defendants charged either a cover fee or extra for food and drinks. The Program was

10

broadcast to no more than 42 patrons. Nevertheless, we are mindful of the deterrent effect

11

of an enhanced award under § 605, and we conclude based on the facts of this case that an

12

enhanced damages award of $2,000 is reasonable.

13

Plaintiff also seeks damages for conversion. Under Arizona law, “the measure of

14

conversion damages includes not only the value of the property taken, but also other damage

15

suffered because of the wrongful detention or deprivation of the property.” Here, plaintiff

16

requests $1,100, the value of the license fee. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit, Ex. 1. We deny the

17

request because the award under § 605 adequately compensates plaintiff for the conversion

18

of its license.

19

Finally, plaintiff’s general request for attorney’s fees is denied. Plaintiff must file a

20

motion for attorney’s fees in accordance with LRCiv 54.2. Plaintiff’s counsel should charge

21

only for hours actually expended on this case, taking into account the boilerplate pleadings

22

and motion-related forms used by this counsel in hundreds of other similar actions.

23

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (doc. 23).

24

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount

25

of $4,000.

26

DATED this 25th day of October, 2012.

27
28
-3-