J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Yolanda K Crawford
Filing
23
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg Denying 17 J & J Sports' Motion for Default Judgment. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 16-cv-01744-RS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING J & J SPORTS’
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
9
10
YOLANDA K. CRAWFORD,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
I. INTRODUCTION
12
13
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J & J Sports”) moves for default judgment against
14
defendant Yolanda K. Crawford. Crawford has failed to respond to J & J Sports’ motion.
15
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument,
16
and the hearing set for October 28, 2016, is vacated. For the reasons that follow, J & J Sports’
17
motion is denied.
18
II. BACKGROUND
19
J & J Sports is a television production company that held “the exclusive nationwide
20
commercial distribution (closed-circuit) rights” to the May 2, 2015, boxing match between Floyd
21
Mayweather, Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. Compl. ¶ 14. According to J & J Sports, the Everett &
22
Jones Barbeque restaurant in Hayward, California, unlawfully screened the boxing match. As a
23
result, J & J Sports brought this action against Crawford, the owner of Everett & Jones Barbeque.
24
J & J Sports advances four claims: violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553,
25
conversion, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
26
§ 17200 et seq).
27
28
Crawford never answered the complaint and has never made an appearance. As a result, J
& J Sports moved for entry of default, and default was entered. J & J Sports now moves for
1
default judgment on all four of its claims and seeks $113,000 in damages. Crawford has filed no
2
opposition.
3
4
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Following entry of default, courts are authorized to grant default judgment in their
discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In
6
exercising its discretion, the factors the court may consider include: (1) the possibility of prejudice
7
to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint;
8
(4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material
9
facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying
10
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, “the general rule is that well-pled
12
allegations in the complaint regarding liability are deemed true.” Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs,
13
285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). “However, a defendant is not held to admit facts that are not
14
well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854
15
(9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Allegations that simply parrot
16
statutory language “are not well-pleaded facts; they are simply . . . legal conclusions, which [a
17
defendant is] not held to have admitted through default. Id. (citations omitted).
18
19
IV. DISCUSSION
The allegations plaintiff relies on to show Crawford’s liability are simply legal conclusions
20
not entitled to an assumption of truth. For instance, the complaint’s garbled factual allegation
21
“Defendant Yolanda K. Crawford personally, or by specifically directed the employees of Everett
22
& Jones Barbeque to unlawfully intercepted and broadcast Plaintiff’s Program at Everett & Jones
23
Barbeque,” [sic] Compl. ¶ 11, merely states a legal conclusion that Crawford acted unlawfully,
24
without saying how or why. Elsewhere, the complaint alleges a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 by
25
roughly parroting the statute’s language:
26
27
28
With full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted,
received, published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by
commercial entities unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 16-cv-01744-RS
2
1
2
above named Defendant [sic]. . . did unlawfully intercept, receive,
publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program at the time of
its transmission . . . .
3
Id. ¶ 17; see 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (“no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or
4
assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or
5
publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through
6
authorized channels of transmission or reception”). The complaint’s other allegations of statutory
7
or common-law liability are likewise little more than broadly stated, copy-paste legal conclusions
8
that should not be taken as true for the purpose of deciding a motion for default judgment. See,
9
e.g., Compl. ¶ 24 (“The unauthorized interceptions, reception, publication, divulgence, display,
and/or exhibition of the Program by the above named Defendant was prohibited by Title 47
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
U.S.C. Section 553, et seq.”).
12
Given that the complaint’s allegations regarding liability are not deemed true for the
13
purpose of deciding this motion, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of denying J & J Sports’ motion.
14
J & J Sports’ complaint does not sufficiently plead meritorious claims, and leaves open the
15
possibility of disputes concerning material facts. The possibility of factual disputes is increased
16
by the fact that the only purported evidence of Crawford having screened the fight, a declaration
17
submitted with J & J Sports’ motion, is marred by unexplained inconsistencies. In that
18
declaration, affiant Michael Bliss claims to have been at Everett & Jones Barbeque from 8:41 P.M.
19
to 8:43 P.M. on the night of the fight, to have seen eight other patrons at the restaurant, and to
20
have seen the fight on the restaurant’s television. Decl. of Affiant. Bliss submitted three photos
21
with his affidavit: one of the exterior of the restaurant during the day; one of the exterior of the
22
restaurant at night, with one patron visible inside; and one of the interior of the restaurant at an
23
indeterminate time of day, with the television off, no patrons visible, and the chairs stacked upside
24
down on the tables. Id. These depictions are all inconsistent with Bliss’s declaration. Not one of
25
the photos shows a boxing match on the television or eight patrons inside the restaurant. Bliss’s
26
declaration does not refer to multiple trips to Everett & Jones Barbeque that could account for
27
these inconsistencies and makes no other attempt to explain them.
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 16-cv-01744-RS
3
1
The amount of money at stake in the case ― J & J Sports believes it is entitled to the
2
substantial sum of $113,000 ― and a policy favoring decisions on the merits also weigh in favor
3
of denying the motion for default judgment. Moreover, J & J Sports will not be prejudiced by the
4
denial of its motion, because it can seek leave to amend its deficient complaint. Although
5
Crawford’s default does not appear to have been the result of excusable neglect, this consideration
6
does not outweigh the other factors, which weigh conclusively in favor of denying J &J’s motion
7
for default judgment.
8
V. CONLCUSION
9
For the foregoing reasons, J & J Sports’ motion for default judgement is denied. If it
chooses, J & J Sports may file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint shall be filed no
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
later than November 3, 2016, and shall state with particularity sufficient facts supporting
12
defendant’s liability.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
Dated: October 13, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 16-cv-01744-RS
4
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?