J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Veloz et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/4/2012. Plaintiff shall file its application for attorney's fees no later than fourteen days from the entry of judgment. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUAN MANUEL VELOZ, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00761 LJO JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(Doc. 41)

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) seeks the entry of default judgment against

18

defendants Juan Manuel Veloz and Maria Angelica Veloz, individually and doing business as El

19

Burrito Veloz Restaurant (“Defendants”). (Doc. 39). Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s

20

application. On August 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s application for

21

default judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 41).

22

The Magistrate Judge found that application of the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in

23

Eitel v. McCool for the entry of default judgment weighed in favor of default judgment. (Doc. 41 at

24

4-8). Because Plaintiff established the elements of a violation of the Communications Act and the

25

tort of conversion, Plaintiff was entitled to damages based upon Defendant’s act of signal piracy. Id.

26

at 8. Evaluating the facts of the case, the Magistrate Judge found $6,000 was an appropriate award

27

in statutory damages, but declined to recommend enhanced damages. Id. at 10-12. However,

28

Plaintiff was entitled to damages for conversion in the amount of $2,800. Id. at 12.
1

1

Although Plaintiff was granted 14 days from August 15, 2012, or until August 29, 2012, to

2

file objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations, the Plaintiff did not do so.

3

Notably, Plaintiff was informed that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

4

right to appeal the District Court’s order. (Doc. 41 at 13-14) (citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

5

(9th Cir. 1991)).

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

7

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of

8

the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and

9

recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12

The Findings and Recommendations filed August 15, 2012 (Doc. 41), are
ADOPTED IN FULL;

13

2.

Plaintiff’s request for the entry of default judgment against Defendants is GRANTED

14

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

15

A.

16

Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages for the violation of the
Communications Act is GRANTED in the amount of $6,000;

17

B.

Plaintiff’s request for enhanced damages is DENIED;

18

C.

Plaintiff’s request for damages for the tort of conversion is GRANTED in the

19

amount of $2,800; and

20

3.

21

later than fourteen days from the entry of judgment.

22
23

Plaintiff SHALL file its application for attorney’s fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 605 no

Moreover, this Court VACATES the September 11, 2012 pretrial conference and October 30,
2012 trial.

24
25 Dated:
66h44d
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 4, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2