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

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting 22 Motion for Default Judgment.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

No. C 10-05092 WHA

v.

15

VICTORIA ESTRELLA CONCEPCION
and WILLIAM HENRY CONCEPCION,
doing business as Henry’s,

16

Defendants.

14

ORDER GRANTING
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

/

17
INTRODUCTION

18
19

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants for unlawfully intercepting and broadcasting

20

a boxing match for which plaintiff owned the exclusive television distribution rights. Default has

21

been entered against defendants, and plaintiff now moves for default judgment. For the following

22

reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT

23
24

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc., is a California company, which owned the

25

exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to “Firepower”: Manny Pacquiao v. Miguel

26

Cotto, WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program, telecasted nationwide on November 14,

27

2009 (Br. 1).

28

Defendants Victoria Estrella Concepcion and William Henry Concepcion are the owners
and operators of Henry’s commercial establishment in South San Francisco (Compl. ¶ 7). They

1

did not enter into a subleasing agreement with plaintiff in order to broadcast the program.

2

The interstate transmission of the program was encrypted and was only made available to

3

plaintiff’s customers who had paid the licensing fees (Compl. ¶ 11).

4

The complaint alleges that on the date of the nationwide telecast of the program,

5

defendants, with willful knowledge that the program was not to be intercepted by an unauthorized

6

entity, intercepted and displayed the program at Henry’s (Compl. ¶ 13).

7

On the date of that telecast, investigator Jeff Kaplan observed the alleged unlawful

8

exhibition of the program at Henry’s. Kaplan observed three televisions and noted that Henry’s

9

had a 60-person capacity. Kaplan’s affidavit reports “50+” people after three separate head
counts, without providing any further clarification as to the range implied by the plus sign. He

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

also noted that there was no required cover charge (Br. 6; Kaplan Aff. 1). Plaintiff did not submit

12

any evidence as to how defendants intercepted the program, whether they advertised, or whether

13

they marked up food prices during the program.

14

Plaintiff commenced this action on November 10, 2010. The complaint was served on

15

defendants on January 14 (Dkt. Nos. 11–12). They failed to answer the complaint by the required

16

deadline and have not subsequently appeared (Riley Decl. ¶ 2). The Clerk entered default against

17

defendants on March 3. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment and seeks to recover damages

18

under 47 U.S.C. 605 and for conversion. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment also asserts the

19

right to recover costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 605 (Br. 3). Oral argument was held

20

on May 12, and Attorney Thomas Riley appeared for plaintiff. Neither defendants nor any

21

representatives for defendants appeared.

22

ANALYSIS
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

23

A.

24

FRCP 55(b)(2) permits a court, following an entry of default, to enter default judgment

25

against a defendant. “The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a

26

discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The scope of relief

27

allowed through default judgment is limited by FRCP 54(c), which states that “[a] default

28

judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”
2

1
2
3
4
5

The court of appeals considers several factors in exercising its discretion to award default
judgment:
(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.

6

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). After entry of default, well-pled

7

allegations in the complaint regarding liability are taken as true, except as to amount of damages.

8

Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). Consequently, Eitel factors

9

two, three, and five weigh in favor of the entry of default judgment. For the following reasons,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

each of the remaining factors also favor entry of default judgment.
First, if the motion were denied, plaintiff would be without a remedy. Failure to enter a
default judgment would therefore result in prejudice to plaintiff.
Second, the sum of money at stake is moderate. In general, the fact that a large sum of

14

money is at stake is a factor disfavoring default judgment. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472 (the fact

15

that $2,900,000 was at stake, when considered in light of the parties’ dispute as to material facts,

16

supported the Court’s decision not to enter judgment by default). In the present action, plaintiff

17

has asked for a $2,200 relief on the conversion claim plus damages up to the $110,000 maximum

18

allowed cumulatively under 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) and (e)(3)(C)(ii) (Br. 6, 9). Although a

19

substantial amount, this is a far cry from the $2,900,000 sum contemplated in Eitel. This factor

20

weighs in favor of entering default judgment.

21

Third, it is unlikely that default was the result of excusable neglect. This action was filed

22

back in November 2010, and defendants were properly served. Defendants are presumably aware

23

of the payment obligations for which they are responsible and were put on notice of this action

24

against them.

25

Fourth, although federal policy favors decisions on the merits, Rule 55(b)(2) permits entry

26

of default judgment in situations such as this where defendants refuse to litigate. After careful

27

consideration of all of the Eitel factors, this order finds that the entry of default judgment is

28

warranted.
3

1

B.

SCOPE OF RELIEF

2

Plaintiff’s complaint sought relief for conversion and violations of 47 U.S.C. 605, 553, and

3

California Business and Professions Code 17200. In the application for default judgment, plaintiff

4

claims conversion and violation of 47 U.S.C. 605 and 553, but in its memorandum in support, by

5

contrast, plaintiff only requests conversion damages and damages assessed under 47 U.S.C. 605,

6

including costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to that code section (Dkt. No. 22; Br. 6, 9). A

7

conversion requires “ownership or right to possession of property, wrongful disposition of the

8

property right and damages.” G.S. Rassmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc., 958

9

F.2d 896, 906 (9th Cir. 1992). A claim under Section 605 can be established when defendants
engage in unlawful interception of “radio communication,” whereas a Section 553 claim concerns

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

interception “over a cable system.” Section 605 allows for damages to be enhanced above

12

conversion damages and costs and attorney’s fees up to $110,000, while Section 553 allows for up

13

to $60,000. 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(i–ii) and 553(c)(3)(A–B). Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be

14

awarded under Section 605 and may be awarded under Section 553. 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(B)(iii)

15

and 553(c)(2)(C).

16

1.

17

CONVERSION

As plaintiff’s factual allegations are taken as true, they support all three elements of a

18

conversion claim. Plaintiff has purchased licensing rights to the program at issue. Given that the

19

defendants’ establishment had a capacity of 60 people, they would have been required to pay

20

$2,200 for a subleasing agreement with plaintiff (Gagliardi Aff. ¶ 8). As defendants did not enter

21

into an agreement and pay the fee, plaintiff is entitled to $2,200 in conversion damages.

22

Accordingly, this order awards $2,200 for the conversion claim.

23
24

2.

DAMAGES UNDER SECTIONS 605 AND 553
i.

Consistency of Treatment

25

As background, plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc., and Attorney Riley are not

26

strangers to this court or this district. In fact, Attorney Riley appears to be counsel of record in 96

27

open cases in our district. At the hearing on the instant motion, Attorney Riley represented that

28
4

1

the assigned judge, by not awarding greater total damages in cases like this one, was out of step

2

with other district court judges.1

3

While courts that have awarded similar types of damages refer to the damages in different

4

ways, this order will refer to all similar damages under either Sections 605 or 553 as enhanced

5

damages, excluding costs and attorney’s fees under those code sections and also excluding

6

damages for the conversion claim. Total damages will refer to enhanced damages and conversion

7

damages.

8
9

At the hearing on this motion, Attorney Riley represented that other judges often award
enhanced damages closer to the maximum of $110,000 under Section 605.2 He claimed that the
proposed total award was “literally a tenth of probably the average award that we see on a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

nonegregious violation . . . on an event of this caliber” (Tr. 5).

12

Upon a search of decisions, however, involving J & J as plaintiff and Attorney Riley as

13

counsel, where plaintiff moved for default judgment pursuant to Section 605, here are the actual

14

results. Of 16 awards based on Section 605 that were found in our district, the average enhanced

15

damages was $8,413, and the average total damages was $10,336.

16

The undersigned has granted default judgment awards to Riley and J & J in three cases

17

prior to this one, and all under Section 553.3 For these, the average enhanced damages was $667,

18

and the average total damages was $3,700. Comparing these awards against the 11 total awards

19

based on Section 553 that were found in our district, the average enhanced damages was $11,462,

20

and the average total damages was $13,053.4

21
22
23
Although at the hearing the judge had proposed $500 in enhanced damages and
$2,200 in conversion damages, for a total of $2,700, this order settles instead on $1,000 in
enhanced damages and $2,200 in conversion damages, for a total of $3,200.
1

24
25
26
27
28

2
The maximum damages under 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) is $10,000, and the
maximum under (e)(3)(C)(ii) is $100,000, for a total of $110,00 under the code section.

The undersigned judge has had other Riley-J & J cases, but not that resulted in
default judgment.
3

4

Docket-by-docket research was done to obtain these numbers in our district.
5

1

State-wide, outside of our district, district court decisions award damages often under both

2

Sections 605 and 553, and the average enhanced damages was $28,533, and the average total

3

damages was $29,124.5

4
5

Although it seems correct that the assigned judge has been less generous than other judges,
Attorney Riley is incorrect in suggesting that most judges award the maximum or close thereto.

6
7

ii.

Whether to Apply Section 605 or 553

Plaintiff requests damages under Section 605, which prohibits “radio” or satellite

different from cable, this order shall examine whether application of either or both Sections 605

10

and 553 is appropriate. In assessing which scenario is more likely given the facts of this specific

11
For the Northern District of California

interception, but has not provided evidence that transmission was by satellite. As satellite is

9

United States District Court

8

incident, where plaintiff did not report seeing a satellite dish after inspecting the premises,

12

damages are more appropriately analyzed under Section 553. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

13

Juanillo, No. C 10-01801 WHA, 2010 WL 5059539, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010).

14
15

iii.

Factors Used to Determine Amount of Damages

Applying Section 553 as the relevant statute, enhanced damages may be awarded up to a

16

$60,000 maximum. 47 U.S.C. 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) and (c)(3)(B). The court of appeals has not set

17

forth specific factors to use in determining the appropriate amount of such enhancements. District

18

courts have thus considered different factors to determine culpability and to achieve proper

19

compensation and deterrence. These include: use of cover charge, increase in food price during

20

programming, presence of advertisement, number of patrons, number of televisions used, and

21

impact of the offender’s conduct on the claimant. Repeated violations may also justify enhanced

22

damages.6

23
24
25

All of the cases supporting the figures cited above can be found in an appendix to
this order.
5

Two representative cases are: J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Herrera, No.
1:10-cv-02090-AWI-SKO, 2011 WL 643413, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (assessing
damages based on use of cover charge, increase in food price, presence of advertisements,
number of patrons, number of televisions used, impact of offender’s conduct on claimant,
and whether or not offender was engaged in a repeated offense); and J & J Sports Prods.,
Inc. v. Paniagua, No. 10–CV–05141–LHK, 2011 WL 996257, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21,
2011) (using multiple violations as a factor in increasing damages from $2,200 to $4,400).
6

26
27
28

6

1

Considering these factors, the extent of enhanced damages in the present action should be

2

limited because defendants are apparently first-time offenders, and plaintiff has provided no

3

evidence of promotional activities or extensive exploitation of the intercepted programming.

4

Although defendants had “50+” patrons and used three televisions, these two factors alone have

5

not justified maximum total damages in any prior district court decisions involving plaintiff. A

6

larger establishment may normally have more patrons and televisions, so those numbers do not

7

necessarily justify greater damages. Awarding the maximum would leave no room to differentiate

8

defendants from more culpable offenders who commit multiple offenses or who actively promote

9

and exploit their illegal acts.
Plaintiff asserts that awarding damages closer to the maximum would more effectively

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

deter future offenses, reduce the amount of its investigative work, and appease bar owners whose

12

businesses were allegedly affected by competition from defendants. Plaintiff cites several

13

decisions awarding $250 to $15,000 in enhanced damages and asserts that such cases were a

14

“major reason” for continued piracy (Br. 15). However, plaintiff provided no evidence to support

15

this assertion and no evidence that any particular amount of damages would be necessary to

16

increase deterrence. Nor has plaintiff submitted declarations from bar owners miffed because they

17

did subscribe lawfully, as claimed at the hearing.

18

In light of the given facts, this order awards $1,000 more than what defendants would have

19

had to pay for a proper license, $2,200, for a total award of $3,200. That amount is a reasonable

20

one in the instant case, excluding costs and attorney’s fees and damages for conversion, especially

21

for first-time offenders for whom plaintiff provided no evidence of advertising, cover charge, or

22

increased food price. This amount will deter first-time offenders while compensating plaintiff.

23

The undersigned declines to award further damages under Sections 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) and (c)(3)(B)

24

because plaintiff has not demonstrated that any additional amount is warranted. If, however, the

25

same defendants (or an alter ego) do it again later on, the enhanced damages should be

26

substantially increased for that offense.

27
28
7

1

iv.

2

Costs and Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff’s motion requests costs and attorney’s fees under Section 605. As reviewed

3

above, Section 553 is the properly applicable code section. Under Section 605, an award is

4

mandatory, but under Section 553, it is not. Obviously, the Court is not required to grant the

5

award under either code section if plaintiff does not provide any supporting evidence, as

6

reasonable costs and attorney’s fees cannot be determined. In the instant motion, plaintiff did not

7

ask for a specific amount of costs and attorney’s fees in either the application for default judgment

8

or the memorandum in support (Dkt. No. 22; Br. 3). Neither did plaintiff provide supporting

9

documents of expenses or rates. Given the lack of a sworn record, this order denies an award of
costs or attorney’s fees, without prejudice to any post-judgment request if the law allows it.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED. For the reasons stated, plaintiff shall

13

be awarded $2,200 in conversion damages and $1,000 in enhanced damages under Section 553.

14

Judgment will be entered separately in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of

15

$3,200.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 7, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

APPENDIX
JUDGE ALSUP DECISIONS INVOLVING ATTORNEY RILEY AND J & J SPORTS
Actual
Enhanced Enhanced Total
Costs and
Damages Damages Damages Damages Attorney’s
(605)
(553)
Fees
2000
0
500
2500
0
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Juanillo
NO. C 10-01801 WHA, 2010
WL 5059539
(order signed Dec. 6, 2010).
4200
0
1250
5750
1500
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Cardoze
NO. C 09-05683 WHA,
2010 WL 2757106
(order signed July 9, 2010).
2600
0
250
2850
1500
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Ro
NO. C 09-02860 WHA, 2010
WL 668065
(order signed Feb. 19, 2010).

OTHER N.D. CAL. DECISIONS INVOLVING ATTORNEY RILEY AND J & J SPORTS
Judge
Actual
Enhanced Enhanced Total
Costs and
Damages Damages Damages Damages Attorney’
(605)
(553)
s Fees
Armstrong
2200
6000
0
8200
2825
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Delatorre
4:10-cv-04168-SBA
(order signed Apr. 28, 2011).
1600
10000
0
11600
0
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Armstrong
Dailey
No. 4:10-cv-01874-SBA
(order signed Apr. 19, 2011).
1800
15000
0
16800
0
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Breyer
Dailey
No. 3:09-cv-04904-CRB
(order signed July 23, 2010).
2800
2000
0
4800
0
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Conti
Cardoze
3:10-cv-01875-SC
(order signed Mar. 9, 2011).

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Conti
Cardoze
NO. 09-4944 SC, 2010 WL
3702836
(order signed Oct. 4, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Fogel
Fraide
NO. 5:10-CV-04180JF/HRL, 2011 WL 566829
(order signed Feb. 14, 2011).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Fogel
Cortez
NO. 5:10-CV-02717-JF/PSG,
2011 WL 311375
(order signed Jan. 28, 2011).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Fogel
Guzman
NO. 5:09-CV-05124
JF/HRL, 2010 WL 4055934
(order signed Oct. 14, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Fogel
Medinarios
NO. C 08-0998 JF (RS),
2008 WL 4412240
(order signed Sept. 25, 2008).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Hamilton
Canedo
NO. C 09-01488 PJH, 2009
WL 4572740
(order signed Dec. 1, 2009).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Illston
Basto
NO. C 10-1803 SI, 2011 WL
566843
(order signed Feb. 14, 2011).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Illston
Miranda
NO. C 09-1037 SI, 2009 WL
3837273
(order signed Nov. 16, 2009).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Koh
Bonilla
NO. 10-CV-05140-LHK,
2011 WL 1344346
(order signed Apr. 8, 2011).

1800

0

3800

5887

2200

0

57800

60000

0

800

0

15928

16728

0

1200

0

39400

40600

0

123

6000

0

6123

0

0

0

1200

1200

0

2800

3000

0

5800

0

1500

1000

0

2500

1873

2200

2

2000

4400

0

6600

0

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Koh
Paniagua
NO. 10-CV-05141-LHK,
2011 WL 996257
(order signed Mar. 21, 2011).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Koh
Ho
NO. 10-CV-01883-LHK,
2010 WL 3912179
(order signed Oct. 5, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Patel
Guzman
NO. C 08-05469 MHP, 2009
WL 1034218
(order signed Apr. 16, 2009).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Walker
Guzman
3:09-cv-02866-VRW
(order filed Sept. 10, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ware
Cardoze
5:09-cv-04204-JW
(order signed Apr. 7, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ware
Dailey
No. 5:09-cv-04205-JW
(order signed Apr. 7, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc, v. White
Montecinos
NO. C 09-02604 JSW, 2010
WL 144817
(order signed Jan. 11, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Whyte
Doan
NO. C-08-00324 RMW,
2008 WL 4911223
(order signed Nov. 13, 2008).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Whyte
Manzano
NO. C-08-01872 RMW,
2008 WL 4542962
(order signed Sept. 29, 2008).

2200

0

8800

0

1600

11600

0

13200

0

2000

0

2000

4000

0

2600

40000

0

42600

0

1600

1000

0

2600

2506

1000

5000

0

6000

3811

3750

15000

0

18750

0

0

0

2500

2500

0

0

3

6600

0

250

250

0

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Wilkin
Huezo
NO. C 09-4906 CW, 2011
WL 1134265
(order signed July 2, 2010).
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Wilkin
Mosley
NO. C-10-5126 CW EMC,
2011 WL 2066713
(order signed May 25, 2011).

1200

6000

0

7200

0

2200

0

5000

7200

2611

OUT-OF-DISTRICT DECISIONS INVOLVING ATTORNEY RILEY AND J & J SPORTS
Judge
Actual
Enhanced
Total
Costs and
Damages Damages
Damages Attorney’s
(605 and 553)
Fees
0
25000
25000
0
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Brennan
v. Torres
No. CIV S-10-3012 JAM EFB
(TEMP), 2011 WL 999199
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Mar. 17, 2011).
0
10000
10000
0
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Burrell
v. Hernandez
No. CIV. S-09-3389-GEB-KJN,
2010 WL 2650526 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed July 1, 2010).
0
40000
40000
0
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Hollows
v. Pollard
Civ. No. S-10-3047 KJM GGH,
2011 WL 777931 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Feb. 28, 2011).
0
23328
23328
0
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Hollows
v. Rodriguez
No. S-10-1044 KJM GGH,
2011 WL 778201 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Feb. 28, 2011).
0
46000
46000
0
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Hollows
v. Rafael
No. CIV S-10-1046 LKK GGH,
2011 WL 445803 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Feb. 8, 2011).

4

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Ishii
v. Herrera
No. 1:10-cv-02090-AWI-SKO,
2011 WL 643413 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Mar. 16, 2011).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Ishii
v. Villalobos
No. 1:09-cv-01130-AWI-DLB
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Jan. 30, 2010).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Ishii
v. George
No. CV-F-08-0090 AWI DLB
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Oct. 29, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Ishii
v. George
No. 1:08-CV-00091-AWI-DLB,
2008 WL 4224616 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Aug. 20, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Ishii
v. Guzman
No. 1:08-CV-00091-AWI-DLB,
2008 WL 3905972 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Aug. 20, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Mendez
v. Pollard
No. CIV S-10-1066 JAM GGH,
2011 WL 356087 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Mar. 3, 2011).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Mendez
v. Rodriguez
No. CIV S-08-1140 JAM DAD,
2010 WL 796942 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Mar. 26, 2010).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Mueller
v. Ferreyra
No. CIV S-08-128 LKK KJM,
2008 WL 4104315 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Aug. 28, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. O’Neill
v. Olivares
No. 1:10-cv-01708-LJO-DLB
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Apr. 15, 2011).

2200

17200

0

2600

80000

82600

0

0

20000

20000

0

0

20000

20000

0

0

30000

30000

0

0

32400

32400

0

800

5000

5800

0

0

100000

100000

0

2200

5

15000

60000

62200

0

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. O’Neill
v. Lupian
No. 1:10-cv-02104 LJO GSA
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Apr. 29, 2011).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. O’Neill
v. Flores
No. 1:08cv0483 LJO DLB
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Aug. 14, 2009).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. O’Neill
v. Esquivel
No. 1:08-cv-00392 LJO GSA
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Nov. 12, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Sammartino
v. Betancourt
No. 3:08-cv-00937 JLS POR,
2009 WL 3416431 (S.D. Cal.)
(order signed Oct. 20, 2009).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Shubb
v. Juarez, No. 2:10-1071 WBS
KJN (TEMP), 2011 WL 221634
(E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Feb. 10, 2011).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Wanger
v. Lemus
No. 1:10-cv-02085 OWW JLT,
2011 WL 703606 (E.D. Cal.)
(order signed Feb. 17, 2011).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Wanger
v. Lopez
No. 1:08-cv-00388-OWWTAG, 2008 WL 3889749 (E.D.
Cal.)
(order signed Aug. 19, 2008).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Whelan
v. Hernandezsilva
No. 10-CV-0389 W(WVG),
2010 WL 3702593 (S.D. Cal.)
(order signed Sept. 15, 2010).

6

2200

8000

10200

0

0

20000

20000

0

0

30000

30000

0

0

6000

6000

0

0

25000

25000

0

2200

1000

3200

0

0

30000

30000

0

800

1000

1800

0