J & J Sports Productions, Inc. et al-v-Pedro Salvador Saucedo
Filing
29
Order by Hon. Edward J. Davila granting 20 Motion for Default Judgment.(ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
v.
PEDRO SALVADOR SAUCEDO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves for entry of default judgment in
17
the amount of $112,200.00 against Defendant Pedro Salvador Saucedo a/k/a Pedro S. Salvador,
18
individually and d/b/a/ Mariscos El Pilar De Nayarit (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks damages
19
stemming from Defendant’s alleged violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and conversion of Plaintiff's
20
property. The court has considered the moving papers and the oral argument of Plaintiff's counsel
21
presented at the hearing on September 23, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will
22
be GRANTED.
23
24
25
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 12, 2010. After Defendant was served with
26
process and failed to respond (Docket No. 9) Plaintiff moved for entry of default and served the
27
motion by mail. (Docket No. 15). The clerk entered default on June 9, 2011. (Docket No. 19).
28
Plaintiff moved for default judgment on June 21, 2011, and has provided proof of service
1
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1
indicating that a copy of the notice and application for default judgment were mailed to Defendant.
2
(Docket No. 20). Defendant did not appear at the hearing.
3
B. Factual history
4
Plaintiff is a distributor of sports and entertainment programming. It purchased the rights to
5
broadcast a November 14, 2009 fight between Manny Pacquiao and Miguel Cotto, together with
6
undercard bouts, televised replay, and color commentary (collectively, the “Program”). It then
7
entered into sublicenses with third parties such as casinos, bars, and social clubs, allowing the
8
sublicensees to exhibit the Program to their patrons. The Program was broadcast in interstate
9
commerce by means of an encrypted transmission, and only Plaintiff's sublicensees were entitled to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
decrypt that transmission.
11
On the day of the broadcast, Nathan Tate (“Tate”), an investigator hired by Plaintiff,
12
observed an exhibition of the Program in Mariscos El Pilar De Nayarit. Defendant was not a
13
sublicensee entitled to exhibit the Program. Tate entered the premises without paying a cover
14
charge and observed the Program on a television. (Decl. of Affiant at 2). Between 9:10 p.m. and
15
9:15 p.m., he performed three headcounts, noting the presence of ten, ten, and ten people by each
16
respective count. (Id. at 2-3). The declaration indicates the capacity of Mariscos El Pilar De Nayarit
17
as seventy-five and that Tate did not observe either a satellite dish or a cable box. (Id. at 2).
18
II. DISCUSSION
19
Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II),
20
$100,000 in enhanced damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and $2,200 in damages
21
for conversion. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant has violated 47 U.S.C. § 553(a), which
22
provides for statutory damages pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii) and enhanced damages pursuant
23
to subsection (c)(3)(B).
24
A. Whether to apply 47 U.S.C. § 605 or 47 U.S.C § 553
25
“[U]pon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the
26
amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th
27
Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944); Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d
28
Cir. 1974)). Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to § 605, which “requires proof that a defendant has
2
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1
‘(1) intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2) divulged or published, or aided the divulging
2
or publishing of, a communication transmitted by the plaintiff.’” California Satellite Systems v.
3
Seimon, 767 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing National Subscription Television v. S & H
4
TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it transmitted the
5
Program, that Defendant unlawfully intercepted the Program, and that Defendant exhibited the
6
Program. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-13).
7
However, § 605 applies only to intercepted “radio” communications or broadcasts through
8
the air, such as satellite broadcasts. J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Man Thi Doan, No. C-08-
9
00324 RMW, 2008 WL 4911223, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2008) (citing United States v. Norris,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
88 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1996)). The pleadings do not allege that Defendant intercepted a satellite
11
broadcast, and Tate does not state that he observed a satellite dish at Mariscos El Pilar De Nayarit.
12
(Decl. of Affiant). Plaintiff contends that it has been unable to ascertain whether Defendant utilized
13
a satellite dish only because Defendant has refused to answer and appear in the instant case.
14
Nonetheless, the Court may not enter default judgment if the factual allegations in the pleadings are
15
insufficient to establish liability.
16
However, the complaint also asserts a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which “prohibits a
17
person from ‘intercept[ing] or receiv[ing] or assist[ing] in intercepting or receiving any
18
communications service offered over a cable system.’” Man Thi Doan, 2008 WL 4911223 at *2
19
(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1)) (alterations in the original). While Tate does not state that he
20
observed a cable box, (Decl. of Affiant), it is undisputed that Defendant intercepted the broadcast
21
by some means, and a cable box is hidden more easily than a satellite dish. Accord J & J Sports
22
Productions, Inc. v. Guzman et al., 3:08-cv-05469-MHP, 2009 WL 1034218, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April
23
16, 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient for present purposes to establish
24
Defendant's liability under § 553(a)(1).
25
1. Statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii)
26
An aggrieved party may recover either actual damages pursuant to § 553(c)(3)(A)(i) or
27
statutory damages pursuant to § 553(c)(3) (A)(ii). A court may award statutory damages of “not
28
less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii).
3
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1
While the violation in the instant case does not appear to be particularly egregious, Plaintiff
2
requests the statutory maximum. Plaintiff contends that the maximum award against Defendant is
3
necessary to deter future violations.
4
Plaintiff has presented evidence of the capacity of the establishment as seventy-five. The
5
establishment served ten persons during each of Tate's headcounts, and the Program was shown
6
only on one television. These factors suggest that maximum damages are unwarranted. The Court
7
finds that an award of $250 is sufficient under the circumstances.
8
2. Enhanced damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B)
9
47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B) provides that in the case of a willful violation for purposes of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
commercial advantage or private gain, “the court in its discretion may increase the award of
11
damages . . . by an amount of not more than $50,000.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants'
12
interception of the program was willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private gain.
13
(Compl. ¶ 13). Facts alleged in the pleadings are binding upon the defaulting party. Geddes, 559
14
F.2d at 560.
15
However, while Mariscos El Pilar De Nayarit is a commercial establishment, it is not at all
16
clear that it is “a business where certain events, such as boxing matches, would be shown to the
17
public.” American Cablevision of Queens v. McGinn, 817 F.Supp. 317, 320 (E.D.N.Y.1993). In
18
light of the fact that Tate observed only ten people present, the Program was shown on only one
19
television, and there was no cover charge, the Court concludes that this is not an appropriate
20
situation for the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to impose enhanced damages.
21
B. Damages for conversion
22
As a result of Defendant's default, the facts alleged in the pleadings are sufficient to
23
establish that Defendant wrongfully denied Plaintiff ownership of the right to control the exhibition
24
the Program and therefore are sufficient to establish that Defendant is liable for the tort of
25
conversion. See Culp v. Signal Van & Storage, 142 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 859, 862 (Cal. App. Dep't
26
Super. Ct. 1956). Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3336, Defendant is liable for the value of the
27
property at the time of the conversion. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sublicensing
28
fee of $2,200.
4
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1
III. CONCLUSION
2
Plaintiff's motion is granted. Plaintiff shall recover $250 in statutory damages pursuant to
3
47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) and $2,200 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3336.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
6
7
_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05131 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
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?