Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Rita Sofia Rondon et al

Filing 17

Order and Judgment by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr, in favor of Innovative Sports Management, Inc. against Encanto Colombian Food Inc.,, Rita Sofia Rondon: It is Ordered that the motion for default judgment be, and hereby is, Grantedonly as to the conve rsion claim. It is further Ordered that the remaining claims be, and hereby are, Dismissed without prejudice. It is further Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that judgment be, and hereby is, Entered in favor of Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, In c., d.b.a. Integrated Sports Media, and against Defendant Rita Sofia Rondon, d.b.a. Encanto Colombian Food, in the amount of $1,000.00. It is further Ordered that Innovative may submit a Bill of Costs to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of this Order and Judgment. Related to: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Count I, II, and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint 16 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Default Judgment 15 (shb)

Download PDF
1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California Western Division 8 9 10 11 12 13 INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., d.b.a. INTEGRATED SPORTS MEDIA, 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. RITA SOFIA RONDON, d.b.a. ENCANTO COLOMBIAN FOOD, et al., CV 24-03559-TJH (KSx) Order and Judgment Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court has considered the motion for default judgment [dkt. # 15] and motion 26 to dismiss [dkt. # 16] filed by Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d.b.a. 27 Integrated Sports Media [“Innovative”], together with the moving papers. 28 On April 30, 2024, Innovative filed this action. Innovative alleged that it owned Order and Judgment – Page 1 of 5 1 the exclusive United States commercial distribution rights to the Colombia v. Chile 2 Soccer Match [“the Soccer Match”], which was broadcast on September 12, 2023, and 3 that Defendant Rita Sofia Rondon displayed the Soccer Match at her restaurant, 4 Encanto Colombian Food [“the Restaurant”], without a license. 5 Innovative alleged that Rondon is the owner and/or operator of the Restaurant, and that 6 she personally displayed the Soccer Match at the Restaurant or directed her employees 7 to do so. Specifically, 8 Innovative alleged the following claims: (1) Unauthorized interception of satellite 9 communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; (2) Unauthorized reception of cable 10 communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; (3) Conversion; and (4) Violation of 11 California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 12 [“UCL”]. 13 14 15 Rondon has never appeared in this action. On July 12, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered her default. Innovative, now, moves for default judgment as to its conversion claim, and to 16 dismiss its remaining claims. 17 Default Judgment 18 When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must consider the 19 following: (1) The possibility of prejudice to Innovative; (2) The merits of Innovative’s 20 substantive claim; (3) The sufficiency of the Complaint; (4) The sum of money at stake; 21 (5) The possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) Whether Rondon’s default 22 was due to excusable neglect; and (7) Federal policy favoring decisions on the merits. 23 See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Regarding the first factor, the possibility of prejudice to Innovative is high 25 because if this motion is denied it will have no alternative recourse for its claims. See 26 Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 27 Regarding the second and third factors, the Court must accept the factual 28 allegations in the Complaint regarding liability as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., Order and Judgment – Page 2 of 5 1 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). To prevail on a conversion claim, Innovative must 2 allege the following: (1) That Innovative had the right to possess the property at issue; 3 (2) Wrongful disposition of the property right by Rondon; and (3) Damages. See 4 Tyrone Pac. Intern. Inc. v. MV Eurychilli, 658 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 Here, Innovative alleged that it owned the exclusive distribution rights to the 6 Soccer Match; that Rondon owned and/or operated the Restaurant; that Rondon 7 personally intercepted and broadcasted the Soccer Match or permitted her employees 8 to do so; and that Rondon did not have a license from Innovative. Finally, Innovative 9 alleged that it suffered financial harm due to the unauthorized exhibition. Accordingly, 10 Innovative successfully alleged a prima facie case for conversion. 11 Regarding the fourth factor, Innovative requested $1,000.00 in damages for its 12 conversion claim. Innovative provided evidence that Rondon would have had to pay 13 a licensing fee of $1,000.00 to lawfully display the Soccer Match. The value of the 14 converted property is the proper measure of damages for a conversion claim. See Cal. 15 Civ. Code § 3336. 16 Regarding the fifth factor, there is little possibility of a dispute concerning the 17 material facts of this case. 18 Complaint regarding liability as true, and Rondon failed to oppose this motion. See 19 Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 20 21 22 The Court must accept the factual allegations in the Regarding the sixth factor, it is unlikely that Rondon’s inaction was due to excusable neglect. She has never participated in this action. Regarding the seventh factor, although federal policy favors decisions on the 23 merits, all other Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment. 24 Damages 25 Innovative sought $1,000.00 in conversion damages. Generally, upon default, 26 the facts alleged in the Complaint, except those facts relating to the amount of damages, 27 are taken as true. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. Innovative provided an affidavit from 28 a private investigator, Erika Marshall, stating that she observed the Soccer Match Order and Judgment – Page 3 of 5 1 playing at the Restaurant on eight television screens. Marshall estimated that the 2 capacity of the restaurant was 80 people. Innovative, also, submitted an affidavit from 3 its president, Doug Jacobs, which set forth the licensing fee schedule for the Soccer 4 Match. For a venue with a capacity of 80 people, the licensing fee was $1,000.00. 5 Consequently, Innovative has established $1,000.00 in conversion damages. 6 Costs 7 Innovative requested 14 days, post-judgment, to submit its bill of costs. Costs 8 will be awarded by the Clerk of Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 9 Dismissal of Remaining Claims 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is the appropriate vehicle to withdraw an individual claim. 11 See, e.g., Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 12 697–88 (9th Cir. 2005). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Innovative may amend the 13 Complaint with the opposing party’s consent or leave of Court. Here, Innovated 14 moved to dismiss its claims arising under 47 U.S.C. § 605, 47 U.S.C. § 553, and 15 California’s UCL. There is no reason for the Court to deny leave. See Fed. R. Civ. 16 P. 15(a)(2). 17 18 Accordingly, 19 20 21 It is Ordered that the motion for default judgment be, and hereby is, Granted only as to the conversion claim. 22 23 24 It is further Ordered that the remaining claims be, and hereby are, Dismissed without prejudice. 25 26 It is further Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that judgment be, and hereby 27 is, Entered in favor of Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d.b.a. Integrated 28 Sports Media, and against Defendant Rita Sofia Rondon, d.b.a. Encanto Colombian Order and Judgment – Page 4 of 5 1 Food, in the amount of $1,000.00. 2 3 4 It is further Ordered that Innovative may submit a Bill of Costs to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of this Order and Judgment. 5 6 Date: January 23, 2025 7 __________________________________ 8 Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order and Judgment – Page 5 of 5

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?