Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Juarez

Filing 34

Order by Hon. Edward J. Davila granting 25 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
12

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

ALDO JIMENEZ JUAREZ,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:10-CV-05580 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves for entry of default judgment in the

17

amount of $111,100.00 against Defendant Aldo Jimenez Juarez, individually and d/b/a Aldo’s

18

Mexican Sports Restaurant (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks damages stemming from Defendant’s

19

alleged violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and conversion of Plaintiff's property. The court has

20

considered the moving papers and the oral argument of Plaintiff's counsel presented at the hearing

21

on September 23, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be GRANTED.

22
23
24

I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 9, 2010. After Defendant was served with

25

process and failed to respond (Docket No. 16) Plaintiff moved for entry of default and served the

26

motion by mail. (Docket No. 19). The clerk entered default on June 9, 2011. (Docket No. 24).

27

Plaintiff moved for default judgment on June 27, 2011, and has provided proof of service

28
1
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05580 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. 25). 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 December 12, 2009 fight between BJ Penn and Diego Sanchez, 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 Aldo’s Mexican Sports Restaurant. 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 two televisions. (Decl. of Affiant at 2.) Between 8:20 p.m.

15

and 8:35 p.m., he performed three headcounts, noting the presence of three, three, and three people

16

by each respective count. (Id. at 2-3). The declaration indicates the capacity of Aldo’s Mexican

17

Sports Restaurant as eighty and that Tate did observe a cable box and not a satellite dish. (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 $1,100 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 amount of

26

damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)

27

(citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944); Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.

28
2
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05580 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

1974)). Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to § 605, which “requires proof that a defendant has ‘(1)

2

intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2) divulged or published, or aided the divulging or

3

publishing of, a communication transmitted by the plaintiff.’” California Satellite Systems v.

4

Seimon, 767 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing National Subscription Television v. S & H

5

TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it transmitted the

6

Program, that Defendant unlawfully intercepted the Program, and that Defendant exhibited the

7

Program. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-13).

8
9

However, § 605 applies only to intercepted “radio” communications or broadcasts through
the air, such as satellite broadcasts. J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Man Thi Doan, No. C-08-

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

00324 RMW, 2008 WL 4911223, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov.13, 2008) (citing United States v. Norris,

11

88 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1996)). The pleadings do not allege that Defendant intercepted a satellite

12

broadcast, and Tate does not state that he observed a satellite dish at Aldo’s Mexican Sports

13

Restaurant. (Decl. of Affiant). Plaintiff contends that it has been unable to ascertain whether

14

Defendant utilized a satellite dish only because Defendant has refused to answer and appear in the

15

instant case. Nonetheless, the Court may not enter default judgment if the factual allegations in the

16

pleadings are insufficient to establish liability.

17

However, the complaint also asserts a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which “prohibits a

18

person from ‘intercept[ing] or receiv[ing] or assist[ing] in intercepting or receiving any

19

communications service offered over a cable system.’” Man Thi Doan, 2008 WL 4911223 at *2

20

(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1)) (alterations in the original). Tate does state that he observed a

21

cable box. (Decl. of Affiant). Accordingly, Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient for present

22

purposes to establish Defendant's liability under § 553(a)(1).

23

1. Statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii)

24

An aggrieved party may recover either actual damages pursuant to § 553(c)(3)(A)(i) or

25

statutory damages pursuant to § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). A court may award statutory damages of “not less

26

than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). While

27

the violation in the instant case does not appear to be particularly egregious, Plaintiff requests the

28
3
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05580 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

statutory maximum. Plaintiff contends that the maximum award against Defendant is necessary to

2

deter future violations.

3

Plaintiff has presented evidence of the capacity of the establishment as eighty. The

4

establishment served three persons during each of Tate's headcounts, and the Program was shown

5

on only two televisions. These factors suggest that maximum damages are unwarranted. The Court

6

finds that an award of $250 is sufficient under the circumstances.

7

2. Enhanced damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B)

8

47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B) provides that in the case of a willful violation for purposes of

9

commercial advantage or private gain, “the court in its discretion may increase the award of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

damages . . . by an amount of not more than $50,000.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants'

11

interception of the program was willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private gain.

12

(Compl. ¶ 13). Facts alleged in the pleadings are binding upon the defaulting party. Geddes, 559

13

F.2d at 560.

14

However, while Aldo’s Mexican Sports Restaurant is a commercial establishment, it is not

15

at all clear that it is “a business where certain events, such as boxing matches, would be shown to

16

the public.” American Cablevision of Queens v. McGinn, 817 F. Supp. 317, 320 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).

17

In light of the fact that Tate observed only three people present, the Program was shown on only

18

two televisions, and there was no cover charge, the Court concludes that this is not an appropriate

19

situation for the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to impose enhanced damages.

20

B. Damages for conversion

21

As a result of Defendant's default, the facts alleged in the pleadings are sufficient to

22

establish that Defendant wrongfully denied Plaintiff ownership of the right to control the exhibition

23

the Program and therefore are sufficient to establish that Defendant is liable for the tort of

24

conversion. See Culp v. Signal Van & Storage, 298 P.2d 162, 142 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 859, 862

25

(Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1956). Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3336, Defendant is liable for the

26

value of the property at the time of the conversion. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the

27

sublicensing fee of $1,100.

28
4
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05580 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 $1,100 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-05580 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT