G & G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Antar et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount of $13,000. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/15/13.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
G & G Closed Circuit Events LLC,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
12

Alan Antar; Antars Sports Bistro LLC,
Defendants.

13
14

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

No. CV-12-1728-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (doc. 17).
16
Plaintiff was granted the exclusive commercial right to distribute the Strikeforce:
17
“Houston”: Mo Lawal v. Rafael Cavalcante telecast on August 21, 2010 via closed-circuit
18
television (“the Program”). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Antars Sports Bistro LLC (“the
19
Bistro”) willfully and unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the Program at the Antars Sports
20
Bar, a food and drink establishment located in Phoenix, Arizona, in violation of 47 U.S.C.
21

§ 605 (governing unlawful interception of satellite signals).1 Although served, the Bistro has

22
failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The clerk entered default against the
23
Bistro on January 9, 2013 (doc. 13). Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against the Bistro
24
in the amount of $112,400.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint also seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which governs the
unauthorized interception of cable communications. In its motion for default judgment,
however, plaintiff 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 defendant’s 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

The Bistro is a relatively large commercial establishment with a maximum capacity

20

of 404 people. According to plaintiff’s investigator, the Program was broadcast on one

21

television to no more than 45 people.2 Patrons were not charged a cover fee. The

22

investigator observed 29 televisions in the establishment, but only one television was

23

showing the Program. Affidavit at 2.

24

By defaulting, defendant admits that it intercepted and exhibited the Program to its

25

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

26
2

27
28

Plaintiff incorrectly asserts in its motion that the Program was broadcast on 29
televisions to 404 people. Motion at 9. Plaintiff’s investigator averred, however, that the
Program was only broadcast on one television to no more than 45 patrons. Affidavit at 2.
-2-

1

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

2

financial gain.” Compl., ¶ 20 (doc. 1). We conclude that statutory damages under §

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

pleadings”).

8

There is no evidence that defendants advertised the Program to draw additional

9

crowds, and no evidence that defendants charged either a cover fee or a premium for food

10

or drinks. The Program was broadcast to no more than 45 patrons. Nevertheless, plaintiff

11

has submitted evidence demonstrating that defendants are repeat offenders. Five other

12

default judgments have been entered against the Bistro for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605.

13

See, e.g., Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Antar, CV-12-1884-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Mar. 12,

14

2013). Because there is evidence of repeat violations, we conclude that an enhanced

15

damages award of $10,000 is reasonable.

16

Plaintiff also seeks $2,400 in damages for conversion. However, it presents no

17

argument or evidence to support this request. We decline to award any additional damages

18

on the conversion claim.

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. 17).

24

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

25

of $13,000.

26

DATED this 15th day of April, 2013.

27
28

-3-