J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Vazquez et al

Filing 20

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the motion for default judgment (Doc. 19 ) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants (Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez and Ringside Pub and Grub LLC, jointly and severally) in the amount of $14,000.00. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/8/17. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

J & J Sports Productions Incorporated,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-01025-PHX-JAT

Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (Doc. 19).

16

The Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant Ringside Pub and Grill LLC on

17

July 3, 2017 and against Defendant Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez on August 15, 2017.

18

(Docs. 14 and 18).

19

I.

Background

20

This case arises from Defendants showing a pay-per-view fight in Defendants’

21

commercial establishment without paying for the fight. (Doc. 19 at 2-3). Plaintiff owned

22

the rights to the fight in question. (Doc. 19 at 2).

23

II.

24
25
26
27
28

Governing Law
Another Court in this District has analyzed a motion for default in another case

filed by this same Plaintiff as follows:
Once a party’s default has been entered, the district court has
discretion to grant default judgment against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). Factors the
court may consider in deciding whether to grant default judgment include
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claim,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5)
the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether default
was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the
merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72. In applying the Eitel
factors, “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to
the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin.
Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1977).
A.
Possible Prejudice to Plaintiff.
The first Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff
served process on Defendants on April 14, 2015. Docs. 13, 14. Defendants
have not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in this action. If
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is not granted, Plaintiff “will likely
be without other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security
Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
B.
The Merits of Plaintiff s Claims and the Sufficiency of the
Complaint.
The second and third Eitel factors favor a default judgment where the
complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. See PepsioCo, Inc., 238
F.Supp.2d at 1175. Plaintiff seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. § 605.1 “[T]o be
held liable for a violation of section 605, a defendant must be shown to
have (1) intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2) divulged or
published, or aided the divulging or publishing of, a communication
transmitted by the plaintiff.” Nat'l Subscription Television v. S & H TV, 644
F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir.1981). Section 605 applies to satellite television
signals. DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff
has alleged that Defendants willfully intercepted and displayed the licensed
program on March 8, 2014. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15–21. Plaintiff’s allegations are
supported by the affidavits of two investigators who visited La Rubia y La
Morena and saw the program being displayed on television screens. Doc.
18–3. One of these investigators noted that approximately forty patrons
were watching the program on four television screens. Id. at 7. Plaintiff has
stated a claim for a willful violation of section 605. [footnote omitted] The
second and third factors favor a default judgment.
C.
The Amount of Money at Stake.
Under the fourth Eitel factor, the Court considers the amount of money at
stake in relation to the seriousness of the defendants' conduct. Plaintiff
seeks damages of $[60,000]. [citation omitted]
D.
Possible Dispute Concerning Material Facts.
Given the sufficiency of the complaint and Defendant’s default, “no
genuine dispute of material facts would preclude granting [Plaintiff’s]
motion.” PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d at 1177.
E.
Whether Default Was Due to Excusable Neglect.
Plaintiff properly served Defendants with the summons and complaint.
Docs. 13, 14. It therefore is “unlikely that [Defendants'] failure to answer
and the resulting default [were] the result of excusable neglect.” Gemmel v.
Systemhouse, Inc., No. CIV 04–187–TUC–CKJ, 2008 WL 65604, at *5 (D.
Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008).
F.
The Policy Favoring a Decision on the Merits.
“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably
possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But the mere existence of Rule 55(b)
“indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not dispositive.” PepsiCo,

-2-

1

Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, Defendants’ failure to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint “makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not
impossible.” Id. The Court therefore is not precluded from entering default
judgment against Defendants. See id.; Gemmel, 2008 WL 65604, at *5.
G.
Conclusion
Six of the seven Eitel factors favor default judgment, and one factor is
neutral. The Court concludes that default judgment is appropriate.

2
3
4
5
6
7

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Molina, No. CV15-0380 PHX DGC, 2015 WL 4396476, at
*1–2 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2015).
In this case, this Court find the application of the Eitel factors to be identical to the

8
9
10

case quoted above, and the Court adopts that reasoning as its own for this case.
III.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 and enhanced damages

11
12

in the amount of $50,000. (Doc. 19-1 at 7).
A.

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Statutory Damages

Statutory damages are appropriate when actual damages cannot be easily proven. J

14
15

Damages

& J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Canedo, No. C 09–01488 PJH, 2009 WL 4572740, *5 (N.D.
Cal. 2009). “An award of damages should deter future conduct but not destroy the
business.” Kingvision Pay—Per—View v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 360 (9th Cir.
2009).
As this Court has previously stated,
“[T]o be held liable for a violation of [47 U.S.C. § 605], a defendant must
be shown to have (1) intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2)
divulged or published, or aided the divulging or publishing of, a
communication transmitted by the plaintiff.” Nat'l Subscription Television
v. S & H TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir.1981). Section 605 applies to
satellite television signals. [footnote omitted]. DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545
F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2008). The statute states that “the party aggrieved
may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection
(a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or
more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). The statute further provides that for any violation that
“was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial
advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase
the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not
more than $100,000 for each violation.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

28

-3-

1

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barrio Fiesta of Manila Rest. LLC, No. CV 11-2216-PHX-

2

JAT, 2012 WL 2919599, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2012).

3

By defaulting, Defendants have admitted to the allegations in the complaint.

4

Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978). However, allegations as to

5

damages must be proven. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.

6

1977). Plaintiff attaches evidence to the motion indicating the cost to lawfully show the

7

fight would have been $2,000. (Doc. 19-13 at 20). Plaintiff also argues that in assessing

8

damages, deterrence should be a factor. (Doc. 19-1 at 13-14). The Court finds that

9

awarding damages in the amount of twice what Defendants would have had to pay to for

10

the fight accomplishes the deterrence goal.

11

statutory damages.

Thus, the Court will award $4,000 in

12

B.

13

22

“Enhanced damages are awarded upon a showing that defendant acted
willfully and for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or
private financial gain. Under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), the court may award up to
$100,000....” Miramontes, 2011 WL 892350, *2. In deciding whether to
award enhanced damages,
Courts generally consider factors such as repeat violations,
substantial unlawful monetary gains, significant actual
damages to plaintiff, advertising, cover charges, or charging
premium menu and drink prices. See Kingvision Pay–Per–
View v. Gutierrez, 544 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1185 (D. Colo.
2008). Some courts find the mere unauthorized showing of a
program sufficient to award enhanced damages because given
the low probability of accidentally showing it, it must have
been done willfully and for profit. See Entertainment By J &
J, Inc. v. Al–Waha Enter., Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 769, 776 (S.D.
Tex. 2002).
Id.

23

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Rubio, No. CV 12-900-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 950031, at *1–2

24

(D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2013).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

25

Enhanced Damages

Here, Plaintiff provided evidence that Defendants charged a cover charge of

26

$5/person.

(Doc. 19-4 at 1).

Plaintiff argues that Defendants committed repeat

27

violations, but the Court could not locate any evidence to support this argument. (Doc.

28

19-1 at 17). Plaintiff submitted evidence that there were a maximum of 58 patrons for

-4-

1

the main event, and a maximum of 36 patrons for the undercard. (Doc. 19-4 at 2; Doc.

2

19-9 at 2). There is no evidence that Defendants charged premium prices for menu items.

3

Thus, using the highest patron number, Defendants made $290.00 for showing the fight.

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant acted willfully and for

5

commercial advantage entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages. However, the Court finds

6

Plaintiff’s requested $50,000 to be excessive given that Defendants profited only

7

$290.00. Here, the Court finds that $10,000 in enhanced damages seems adequate given

8

how few factors weigh in favor of enhanced damages.

9

V.

Conclusion

10

Thus, the Court will award $4,000.00 in statutory damages, and $10,000.00 in

11

enhanced damages, for a total of $14,000.00. As Plaintiff requested (Doc. 19-1 at 18),

12

Plaintiff may move for attorney’s fees and costs within the time set by the Rules. As a

13

result of the forgoing,

14

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for default judgment (Doc. 19) is granted. The

15

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants

16

(Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez and Ringside Pub and Grub LLC, jointly and severally) in

17

the amount of $14,000.00.1

18

Dated this 8th day of November, 2017.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Although the complaint in this case has two counts, in the motion for default
judgment, Plaintiff seeks damages as to only Count I. The award herein disposes of the
entire complaint, and Court II is deemed dismissed.
-5-