J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Carbajal-Armendariz et al
Filing
36
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that defendant Marina Carbajal-Armendariz's Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Respond to Requests for Admission Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. 29 ) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26 ) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to the extent that the plaintiff, pursuant to Count I of its Complaint, is awarded the total sum of $1,100.00 from defendants Marina Carbajal-Armendariz and Carbajal's Mexican F ood, LLC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), as well as the additional sum of $2,500.00 from defendant Carbajal's Mexican Food, LLC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file its request for attorney's fees and costs in compliance with this Court's Local Rules. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/1/15.(ATD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
vs.
Marina Carbajal-Armendariz, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-13-02279-PHX-PGR
ORDER
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
17
26). Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the relevant record, the
18
Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that plaintiff
19
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. is entitled to entry of judgment in its favor as a matter
20
of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
21
Background
22
The complaint, filed on November 7, 2013, alleges that defendants Marina
23
Carbajal-Armendariz, aka Marina Carbajal, and Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC, both
24
doing business as Carbajal’s Mexican Food (“the Restaurant”), showed the pay-per-
25
view program Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez III WBO Welterweight
26
Championship Fight Program (“the Program”) on November 12, 2011, at the
1
Restaurant located in Mesa, Arizona, without having purchased a commercial
2
license to do so from the plaintiff, which held the exclusive nationwide commercial
3
distribution (closed-circuit) rights to the Program. The complaint alleges three
4
claims: violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Count I), violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553 (Count II),
5
and conversion (Count III).
6
Defendant Marina Carbajal-Armendariz, acting pro se, filed an answer on her
7
own behalf on March 6, 2014. Defendant Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC, through
8
Carbajal-Armendariz, filed a Notice of Appearance and Intent to Defend on March
9
6, 2014, wherein it stated that it would defend this action once it retained counsel;
10
however, to date, no counsel has filed a notice of appearance on its behalf and since
11
a limited liability company may appear in federal court only through a licensed
12
attorney, Carbajal-Armendariz cannot represent it. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481
13
F.3d 137, 140 (2nd Cir.2007) (noting that even a sole member or solely-owned
14
limited liability company may appear in federal court only through a licensed
15
attorney). The plaintiff has sought summary judgment against both defendants.
16
Discussion
17
Although the complaint alleges federal claims pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553 and
18
§ 605, the plaintiff’s request for judgment is directed solely at its § 605 claim; it does
19
not seek anything in its proposed judgment for its § 553 claim or its conversion
20
claim. Section 605(a) provides, in relevant part, that
21
22
23
24
[n]o person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio
communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted
communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto
shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign
communication by radio and use such communication (or any
information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of
another not entitled thereto.
25
26
-2-
1
This statute includes the interception of satellite television signals. DirecTV v. Webb,
2
545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2008); J and J Sports Productions v. Coyne, 857
3
F.Supp.2d 909, 913 (N.D.Cal.2012) (47 U.S.C. § 605 “prohibits unauthorized receipt,
4
publication, or use of satellite cable programming.”) The complaint alleges in part
5
in Count I, the § 605 claim, that the defendants “did unlawfully intercept, receive,
6
publish, divulge, and/or exhibit the Program at the time of its transmission” at their
7
commercial establishment, and that they did so “willfully and for purposes of direct
8
and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.”
9
All of the relevant facts necessary to establish defendant Carbajal’s Mexican
10
Food, LLC’s liability under § 605 have been conclusively established as a result of
11
its failure to respond to the request for admissions directed at it, including that it
12
unlawfully intercepted the Program without the plaintiff’s authorization and that it did
13
so willfully and for financial gain. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3); Conlon v. United States,
14
474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2007) (“Unanswered requests for admissions may be
15
relied on as the basis for granting summary judgment.”) The plaintiff is therefore
16
entitled to an award of § 605 damages as to Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC.
17
The issue is somewhat different as to defendant Carbajal-Armendariz. She
18
failed to respond to the request for admissions directed at her at the time they were
19
due and the plaintiff relied on her deemed admissions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
20
36(a)(3) in its summary judgment motion. However, Carbajal-Armendariz thereafter
21
responded to the request for admissions concomitantly with her response to the
22
summary judgment motion and seeks to have her responses to the request for
23
admissions made timely through her Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to
24
Respond to Requests for Admission Nunc Pro Tunc. Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s
25
opposition to her motion, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted
26
-3-
1
given Carbajal-Armendariz’s pro se status and because the plaintiff has made no
2
showing that it will be prejudiced by permitting Carbajal-Armendariz to substitute her
3
filed responses for her deemed admissions. As the plaintiff concedes, “as evidenced
4
by Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment itself, summary judgment is appropriate
5
irrespective of the requests for admissions.” See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623-24 (“When
6
undertaking a prejudice inquiry under Rule 36(b), district courts should focus on the
7
prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial. ... We agree with the other
8
courts that have addressed the issue and conclude that reliance on a deemed
9
admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not constitute prejudice.”)
10
Based on Carbajal-Armendariz’s responses to the request for admissions and
11
her concessions in her summary judgment response and related documents, the
12
Court concludes that there is no dispute as to the following relevant facts: that the
13
Program was shown at the Restaurant on November 12, 2011 and was viewed by
14
its patrons, that Carbajal-Armendariz ordered the Program for the Restaurant
15
through her satellite television company DirecTV, that she did not pay a licensing fee
16
directly to the plaintiff for the Program, that she is the owner and manager of the
17
Restaurant and an officer of the entity owning the Restaurant, that she was in the
18
Restaurant on the night the Program was shown, and that the Program was
19
broadcast in the Restaurant while food and beverages were being sold to its patrons.
20
While Carbajal-Armendariz argues that she is not liable for violating § 605
21
because she purchased the right to broadcast the program from DirecTV, which she
22
contends is the plaintiff’s agent or licensee, and that if DirecTV had no right to sell
23
the Program to her or if it charged her the wrong amount for the Program, that is the
24
plaintiff’s problem and not hers.
25
argument is not a cognizable defense to § 605 liability since that statute is in effect
The Court agrees with the plaintiff that this
26
-4-
1
a strict liability statute. See DirecTV v. Crespin, 224 Fed.Appx. 741, 757 (10th Cir.
2
2007) (noting that “§ 605(a) does not have an intent requirement.”); J & J Sports
3
Productions, Inc. v. Greathouse, 2015 WL 717907, at *2 (D.Ariz. Feb. 19, 2015)
4
(“Violation of section 605 is a strict liability offense.”); Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd.
5
v. Williams, 1 F.Supp.2d 1481, 1484 (S.D.Ga. 1998) (“William also states that she
6
did not know she was doing anything illegal. The Cable Act [47 U.S.C. § 605],
7
however, does not require a knowing violation. .. . Thus, Williams’s knowledge
8
concerns her damages and not her liability.”); see also, Doherty v. Wireless
9
Broadcasting Systems of Sacramento, Inc., 151 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.1998)
10
(noting that the “remedial provisions” of § 605 “take into consideration the degree of
11
the violator’s culpability and provide for reduce damages in those instances where
12
the violator was unaware of the violation.”) Based on its review of the evidence,
13
viewed in the light most favorable to Carbajal-Armendariz, the Court concludes that
14
the plaintiff is entitled to an award of § 605 damages from Carbajal-Armendariz.
15
Section 605 provides for statutory damages per violation “of not less than
16
$1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
17
Section 605 also permits an additional award of enhanced damages of up to
18
$100,000 if “the court in its discretion” determines that the defendant willfully violated
19
the statute “for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or financial
20
gain.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). However, § 605 further provides that “[i]n any case where
21
the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his
22
acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the
23
award of damages to a sum of not less than $250.” § 605(e)(3)(C)((iii). The plaintiff,
24
without differentiating between the two defendants, seeks an award of $ 6,600 in
25
statutory damages and $ 23,100 in enhanced statutory damages, for a total statutory
26
-5-
1
damages award of $ 29,700.
2
The plaintiff’s investigator, Florenco Mendez, states the following facts in his
3
“fill in the blanks” form affidavit that are relevant to the issue of § 605 damages: that
4
he visited the Restaurant for 30 minutes on the evening of November 12, 2011; that
5
he did not pay a cover charge; that he ordered two drinks from a waitress; that the
6
restaurant had four flat screen televisions, approximately 40" in size; that the
7
televisions were showing the Pacquiao v. Marquez boxing event, and that he
8
watched the first five rounds of the Luis Cruz v. Juan Carlos Burgos bout; and that
9
the restaurant had the capacity of approximately 75 people, and that at the three
10
times he counted the number of patrons there were, 55, 53, and 60 people. The
11
investigator also provided some photographs showing that there was a satellite dish
12
located somewhere on the roof of the strip mall in which the Restaurant is located.
13
The plaintiff has also provided evidence through the affidavit of Joseph Gagliardi, the
14
plaintiff’s president, that the plaintiff never sold the defendants a sublicense to show
15
the Program at the Restaurant and that no other entity was authorized to transmit
16
the Program to the defendants, and that the Cruz v. Burgos fight seen by the
17
plaintiff’s investigator was an undercard bout that was part of the Program. The
18
plaintiff has further provided evidence that the commercial licensing fee for the
19
Program for an establishment with seating up to 100 people was $2,200. Carbajal-
20
Armendariz has submitted a copy of her DirecTV bill which confirms that she paid
21
the residential rate of $54.95 for the Program.
22
Carbajal-Armendariz argues that the plaintiff is entitled to only minimal
23
damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)((iii) because she thought she was fully
24
authorized to show the Program at the Restaurant inasmuch as she had a satellite
25
television contract at the restaurant with DirecTV, she had purchased the Program
26
-6-
1
from DirecTV to show at the Restaurant after being solicited by DirecTV to do so,
2
and she knew nothing about DirecTV’s pricing or authority regarding her access to
3
the Program and did not realize that the Restaurant had been billed the wrong fee
4
and that she had to pay a larger fee to the plaintiff to show the Program. The plaintiff
5
argues Carbajal-Armendariz is not entitled to a reduction in damages because she
6
objectively had reason to know that her showing of the Program was not authorized
7
inasmuch as DirecTV’s commercial viewing agreement in effect at the time the
8
Program was broadcast warned its customers that not all programming transmitted
9
by DirecTV was available to commercial customers and that customers could be
10
subject to legal action for circumventing broadcast restrictions.
11
As the plaintiff acknowledges, the Court has considerable discretion in
12
awarding damages.
Based on the evidence presented, the Court, taking into
13
account the provision of § 605(e)(3)(C)(iii) as it relates to Carbajal-Armendariz,
14
concludes that statutory damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of
15
$ 1,100 is a just award as against both defendants.
16
While the plaintiff, without differentiating between the defendants, requests
17
that the Court also award it significant enhanced damages to deter the piracy of its
18
closed-circuit telecasts, the Court declines to award any enhanced damages under
19
the facts of this case against Carbajal-Armendariz. While the Court concludes that
20
the plaintiff is entitled to a discretionary award of some enhanced damages as to
21
Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC in light of its deemed admissions (to the extent that
22
they were not contradicted by other evidence of record), the Court notes that there
23
is little evidence in the record of any significant “commercial advantage or private
24
financial gain” or of egregious misconduct by this defendant warranting anything
25
more that fairly minimal enhanced damages. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v.
26
-7-
1
Guzman, 2008 WL 1924988, at *3 (D.Ariz. April 30, 2008) (“Courts use a variety of
2
factors in determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to enhanced
3
damages for willfulness under § 605, including prior infringements, substantial
4
unlawful monetary gains, significant actual damages to the plaintiff, the defendant’s
5
advertising of the broadcast, and the defendant’s charging a cover charge or
6
premiums for food and drinks during the broadcast.”) In light of the evidence, the
7
Court will award $ 2,500 in enhanced damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) against
8
Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC.
9
The plaintiff also requests in its complaint and in its summary judgment motion
10
that it be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees and relevant costs pursuant to §
11
605. The plaintiff is awarded its costs and fees because § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) provides
12
that the Court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable
13
attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” The plaintiff is directed to comply
14
with LRCiv 54.1 and LRCiv 54.2 in applying for its costs and fees. Therefore,
15
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Marina Carbajal-Armendariz’s Motion for
16
Extension of Time Within Which to Respond to Requests for Admission Nunc Pro
17
Tunc (Doc. 29) is granted.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
19
(Doc. 26) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to the extent that the plaintiff,
20
pursuant to Count I of its Complaint, is awarded the total sum of $1,100.00 from
21
defendants Marina Carbajal-Armendariz and Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC pursuant
22
to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), as well as the additional sum of $2,500.00 from
23
defendant Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
24
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file its request for attorney’s
26
-8-
1
2
fees and costs in compliance with this Court’s Local Rules.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2015.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-9-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?