J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Medina

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for DEFAULT JUDGMENT as to Defendant Emma Tona Medina, individually and d/b/a La Cabana Restaurant filed by J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Matter is referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due within 15 days, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 02/16/2014. (Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
EMMA TONA MEDINA,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 12)

Defendant.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 15 DAYS

16
17

Case No. 1:13-cv-01443-AWI-MJS

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), filed a

19

motion for default judgment against Emma Tona Medina, individually and doing

20

business as La Cabana Restaurant ("Defendant"). The motion was referred to this Court

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The Court, finding the matter

22

suitable for decision without a hearing, VACATED the April 4, 2014, hearing and

23

deemed the motion submitted upon the record in accordance with Local Rule 230(g).

24

For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion

25

for default judgment be GRANTED.

26

///

27

///

28
1

1

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff filed this civil action on September 9, 2013. The Complaint alleges

3

Defendant violated the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq.) and the

4

Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. §

5

553, et seq.). It also asserts causes of action for conversion and for violation of

6

California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. The suit is based on

7

Defendant’s alleged unlawful interception, receipt, and exhibition of the “Julio Cesar

8

Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez, WBC Middleweight Championship Fight Program”

9

telecast nationwide on Saturday, September 15, 2012 (the "Program"). According to

10

the Complaint, Plaintiff was the exclusive commercial distributor of closed-circuit rights

11

to the Program. Since Defendant operates a commercial establishment and exhibited

12

the Program there, she could not have lawfully obtained the Program without

13

contracting with Plaintiff. Defendant did not so contract, and thus necessarily must have

14

wrongfully intercepted, received, and broadcasted the Program.

15

Plaintiff, in its application for default, only requests relief as to claims one

16

(violation of the Communications Act) and three (conversion) of the complaint. Count

17

one of the C omplaint asserts a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized

18

Publication

19

intercepted, received, and exhibited the Program for purposes of direct or indirect

20

commercial advantage or private financial gain. Plaintiff prays for $110,000 in statutory

21

damages. Count three alleges Defendant tortuously obtained possession of the Program

22

and wrongfully converted it for its own benefit. Plaintiff requests an award of $1,600 in

23

compensatory damages for the alleged conversion.

or

Use

of

Communications)

alleging

that

Defendant

knowingly

24

On November 15, 2013, the summons was returned showing that service of

25

the summons and complaint was effected on Defendant on November 12, 2013.

26

Defendant has not filed any response to the Complaint. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff

27

requested default be entered against Defendant, and on January 23, 2014, the Clerk

28
2

1

entered said default. On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present motion for default

2

judgment against Defendant. Defendant has filed no opposition to the motion or

3

otherwise sought to appear in the case.

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

A.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that judgment may be entered

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Legal Standard

by the Court on a party's motion for default judgment and authorizes the Court to:
conduct hearings or make referrals - preserving any federal statutory right
to a jury trial - when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:
(A) conduct an accounting;
(B) determine the amount of damages;
(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or
(D) investigate any other matter.
Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of liability in the complaint are taken as
true. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987); Dundee
Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983).
"Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the
entry of a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of
money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits." Eitel
v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).
B.

Analysis
1.

Default Judgment

24

Service of the summons and Complaint in this action was effected on November

25

12, 2013. A copy of the Proof of Service was filed with this Court on November 15,

26

2013. Defendant has not responded to the Complaint or to this Motion (of which he was

27

given notice) or otherwise appeared in the action. The Clerk of the Court entered default

28

against Defendant on January 23, 2014. According to the Affidavit of Plaintiff's counsel
3

1

filed in support of Plaintiff's Request to Enter Default, Defendant is not an infant,

2

incompetent, in the military service, or otherwise exempted under the Servicemembers Civil

3

Relief Act of 2003.

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint properly and credibly alleges all

5

material facts and elements necessary to the claims asserted and to the relief sought, and

6

it reflects a meritorious substantive claim. Defendant has chosen not to respond to or

7

contest the action or this motion. There is no basis to conclude that Plaintiff will be

8

prejudiced by this case proceeding via default judgment rather than trial. Inasmuch as

9

default serves as an admission of Plaintiff's well-pled allegations of fact, Danning v.

10

Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386,1388 (9th Cir. 1978), it must be concluded that there is no

11

dispute as to any material fact. It appears that Defendant simply elected to allow this

12

matter to proceed through default; default was not caused by excusable neglect.

13

Although the Court favors resolving cases on the merits after adversarial proceedings, it

14

cannot force Defendant to participate. Thus, the only factor weighing against default

15

judgment in this case is the relatively large amount of money Plaintiff seeks in

16

damages. However, as discussed below, the actual award made by the Court is not of

17

such and amount as to militate against proceeding by default judgment.

18
19
20

Accordingly, the Court recommends that default judgment be entered against the
Defendant.
2.

Statutory and Enhanced Damages

21

In its motion, Plaintiff seeks default judgment and an award of damages

22

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) (statutory damages) and 47 U.S.C. §

23

605(e)(3)(C)(ii) (enhanced statutory damages) in the amount of $110,000 against

24

Defendant for unlawfully intercepting, receiving, and exhibiting the Program and

25

$2,000 damages for conversion.

26

Section 605(a) provides that "no person receiving, assisting in receiving,

27

transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by

28
4

1

wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport,

2

effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission of

3

reception . . . ." Those who violate this Section are subject to the following civil penalty:

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

[T]he 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, and for each violation of paragraph (4) of this subsection involved in
the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum
not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just.
47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
Plaintiff

attests

that

it

is

a

closed-circuit

distributor

of

sports

and

entertainment programming that purchased and retained the exclusive commercial
exhibition licensing rights to the Program. Plaintiff marketed the sub-licensing
(commercial exhibition) rights in the Program to its commercial customers. Plaintiff
seeks substantial damages as a deterrent to Defendant and others continuing to
pirate and commercially exhibit such broadcasts. Plaintiff contends that persistent
signal piracy of Plaintiff's programming costs the company, its customers, and the
community millions of dollars annually. Plaintiff asserts that continued signal piracy is
caused, in part, by the perceived lack of consequences as reflected in part by nominal
or minimal damage awards by courts, for such unlawful interception and exhibition. As
such, Plaintiff requests that it be awarded the maximum, $10,000 allowance for statutory
violations.
Plaintiff also seeks an award of significant enhanced statutory damages
under Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) because Defendant's action in this case was willful – the
technology is such that it cannot occur inadvertently or innocently -- and done for
commercial advantage. Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) provides that where "the court finds
that the violation 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

28
5

1

$100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) . . . ." Emphasizing the need for deterrence

2

as to this Defendant and others, Plaintiff requests that it be awarded $100,000 in

3

enhanced statutory damages.

4

Here, the summons and the complaint were properly served upon Defendant, its

5

default was properly entered, and the complaint is sufficiently well-pled. See Eitel, 782

6

F.2d at 1471-72. By default, Defendant admitted to willfully violating Section 605 for the

7

purposes of commercial advantage. See TeleVideo Sys., Inc., 826 F.2d at 917-18. The

8

facts before the Court indicate that Defendant’s establishment had an approximate

9

capacity of 75 people. (Affidavit of Gary Gravelyn, ECF No. 12-3.) There was one

10

approximately 42 inch flat screen television displaying the Program on September 15,

11

2012. Three head-counts revealed nine people in the facility at the time. (Id.) No

12

evidence was presented that a cover charge was required to enter the establishment.

13

(Id.)

14

The amount of damages awarded should be in an amount that is adequate to deter

15

Defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future. Therefore, the Court

16

recommends that the maximum allowable statutory damages be awarded pursuant to

17

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of $5000.

18

Some factors weigh against a substantial award of enhanced statutory damages

19

in this case. There is no evidence that Defendant (1) advertised the broadcast of the

20

Program to entice a larger crowd, (2) charged a premium for food and drinks on the

21

night the broadcast was shown, or (3) had a mandatory minimum cover charge. It is

22

noted that Defendant had relatively few patrons at the business during the Program.

23

Defendant’s conduct, whether particularly profitable for Defendant or not, has

24

an adverse impact on Plaintiff and the industry. Plaintiff stresses the significant adverse

25

effect piracy has had on its industry, the need for deterrence and the perception that the

26

courts have placed undue weight on whether Defendants promote the program. Plaintiff

27

argues that pirates often refrain from advertising their intent to exhibit such

28
6

1

programming, to increase the price of food and drinks, or to charge a cover charge,

2

all in the hope of undercutting competitors who do sub-license and broadcast the

3

program lawfully.

4
5

The Court is also mindful that minimal damage awards may result in a
perceived lack of consequences for signal piracy.

6

W e i g h i n g a ll of these factors, the Court recommends that enhanced

7

statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 be awarded under Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

8

This is an amount which should serve as a significant disincentive to defendant and

9

others to try to profit directly or indirectly from the pirating, but also recognizes the

10

absence of evidence that Defendant actively sought to profit directly or did actually profit

11

from the pirating.

12
13
14

3.

Damages for Conversion

Plaintiff seeks recovery of $1,600 as the value of the property at the time of
the conversion.

15

Under California law, conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over

16

the property of another. “The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff's ownership or

17

right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant's

18

conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.” Greka

19

Integrated, Inc. v.Lowrey, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1572, 1581 (2005) (internal quotation and

20

citation omitted); see also G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc.v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc.,

21

958 F.2d 896, 906 (9th Cir. 1992). "Because conversion is a strict liability tort,

22

questions of the defendant's good faith, lack of knowledge, motive, or intent are not

23

relevant." Gilman v. Dalby, 176 Cal. App. 4th 606, 615 n.1 (2009). Exclusive right to

24

distribute a broadcast signal to commercial establishments constitutes a "right to

25

possession of property" for purposes of conversion. See Don King Prods./Kingvision v.

26

Lovato, 911 F.Supp. 419, 423 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (misappropriation of intangible

27

property without authority from owner is conversion); see also DIRECTV, Inc. v.

28
7

1

Pahnke, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1189 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (concluding that the right to

2

distribute programming via satellite constituted a right to possession of personal

3

property for purposes of a conversion claim under California law.)

4

Here, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive domestic commercial exhibition

5

licensing rights to the Program. As such, Plaintiff had the right to possess the property

6

at the time of the conversion. Because Defendant did not legally purchase the Program,

7

the exhibition of the Program constituted conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of

8

property rights. The rate for the Program at an establishment such as Defendant's

9

establishment was $1,600. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for conversion in the

10

amount of $1,600.

11

IV.

12
13

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on a consideration of the declarations, pleadings, and exhibits to the

present motion, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

14

1.

Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be GRANTED;

15

2.

Judgment be entered in this action against Defendant Joe Anthony

16

Gonzales as follows:

17

a.

$5,000 statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605;

18

b.

$1,500 enhanced statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605;

19

and

20

c.

$1,600 damages for the tort of conversion.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge

22

assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule

23

304. Within fifteen (15) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file

24

written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a

25

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

26

Judge's Findings and Recommendations."

27

magistrate

judge's findings

The district judge will

review

the

and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

28
8

1

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

2

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

3

1153, 1156 (9th Cir 1991).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2014

/s/

7

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9