G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Oscar Dorado Aguilar
Filing
78
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 77 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's 76 Motion for Default Judgment signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/29/2025. (Deputy Clerk EF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR DORADO AGUILAR, individually
and doing business as Rico’s Pizza,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:20-cv-1745 JLT BAM
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(Docs. 76, 77)
17
G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, asserts that it held the exclusive rights to the nationwide
18
commercial distribution of Daniel Jacobs v. Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. Championship Fight Program,
19
telecast nationwide on Saturday, December 20, 2019. Plaintiff asserts Oscar Dorado Aguilar,
20
individually and doing business as Rico’s Pizza, violated its exclusive rights to the broadcast, and
21
Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605; the
22
Cable & Television Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 553; conversion under state law; and
23
California Business & Professions Code § 17200. (See generally Doc. 1.) Following the Clerk’s entry
24
of default, Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against Defendant on the claims for violations of
25
Section 605 under the Communications Act and conversion. (Doc. 76.)
26
Examining the sufficiency of the complaint, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff alleged
27
sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract against Defendant for a violation of the
28
Communication Act and conversion. (Doc. 77 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge determined the factors
1
1
identified by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) weighed in
2
favor of default judgment. (Id. at 3-7.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff was entitled to statutory
3
damages in the amount of $2,000, after considering the advertising for the event on a Facebook page
4
for Rico’s pizza, the capacity of Rico’s Pizza, the number of patrons present, the televisions used for
5
the broadcast, and the $600 amount Defendant would have paid for a proper sublicense. (Id. at 7-8.)
6
The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff was entitled to enhanced damages and recommended the
7
Court award $2,400 in enhanced damages. (Id.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended the Court
8
award $600 in damages for conversion. (Id. at 9-10.)
9
The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified it that any
10
objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 77 at 11.) The Court also advised Plaintiff the “failure to
11
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the
12
magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39
13
(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
14
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.
15
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings related to the statutory damages
16
and enhanced damages are supported by the record and proper analysis. However, as the magistrate
17
judge acknowledged, this Court has declined to award damages for conversion in addition to statutory
18
damages. Because such the damages for conversion are redundant of— and subsumed into—the
19
damages awarded for Section 605, the Court declines to award a separate amount for conversion. See,
20
e.g., G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. La Placita RM Rest. Inc., 2023 WL 5846676, at*1-2 (E.D.
21
Cal. Sept. 8, 2023) (adopting the recommendations to award statutory damages and enhanced damages
22
under Section 605 on a motion for default judgment, and declining to award damages for conversion
23
because “such an award would be redundant to the amount in statutory damages”); G & G Closed
24
Circuit Events, LLC v. Barajas-Quijada, 2020 WL 635264 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020) (“this Court
25
has repeatedly declined to award damages for conversion in addition to statutory damages for the same
26
wrong”) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the recommendation for a
27
separate award for conversion. See La Placita RM Rest. Inc., 2023 WL 5846676, at *1-2; J & J Sports
28
Prods. v. Argueta, 224 F.Supp.3d 700, 703 (W.D. Ark. 2016) (“as a matter of law that if liability is
2
1
established for both a violation of § 605 and the conversion claim, [the plaintiff] must elect its remedy
2
because the Court will not allow recovery for both”).
3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
4
1.
in part.
5
6
The Findings and Recommendations dated January 7, 2025 (Doc. 77) are ADOPTED
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED in part, in the modified amount
7
of $2,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) and
8
$2,400.00 in enhanced damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3(C)(ii), for a total
9
award of $4,400.00.
10
3.
Plaintiff’s request for damages for conversion is DENIED.
11
4.
Judgment SHALL be entered in favor of Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC
12
and against Defendant Oscar Dorado Aguilar, individually and doing business as Rico’s
13
Pizza.
14
5.
Plaintiff shall file any motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 and costs
15
no later than 14 days from the entry of judgment. Failure by Plaintiff to file such a
16
motion within the time provided will result in an order directing the Clerk of
17
Court to close this case.
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 29, 2025
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?