G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Zapata

Filing 47

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 33 Motion for Default Judgment; Adopting in Part Report and Recommendation to 42 re Motion for Default Judgment; Granting in Part and Denying in Part 46 Motion for for De Novo Determination Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/19/2019. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2019) Modified on 8/19/2019 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,

Case No. 5:18-cv-01103-EJD

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ADOPTING AS
MODIFIED REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING IN
PART MOTION FOR DE NOVO
DETERMINARION

v.
JUAN BUSTOS ZAPATA,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 42, 46
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Default Judgment, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part the Motion for
Default Judgment (the “Report and Recommendation”), and Plaintiff’s Motion for De Novo
Determination (the “Motion”). Defendant did not file any objections to the Report and
Recommendation and has not otherwise appeared. Plaintiff timely filed the Motion seeking de
novo determination of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations that $1,000 be awarded in
statutory damages and that no enhanced damages be awarded. These matters are suitable for
resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Default Judgment and
supporting documents, and the Report and Recommendation. Those documents set forth the facts,
so the Court does not recount them here, other than to note that this case involves the unlicensed
broadcast of a closed-circuit event in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605. The Magistrate
Judge recommended the following award to Plaintiff: $1,000 in statutory damages, no enhanced
damages, $3,200 in damages for conversion, $9,789.29 in fees and costs. The Court finds that the
Case No.: 5:18-cv-01103-EJD
1

1

Report and Recommendation is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law except to (1) the

2

recommended award of statutory damages and (2) the denial of enhanced damages, which are

3

challenged by Plaintiff. The Court now reviews those two determinations de novo. 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 636(b)(1).

5

Plaintiff challenges the recommended award of $1,000 in statutory damages. Section 605

6

authorizes damages of “not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47

7

U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). “A traditional method of determining statutory damages [under

8

Section 605] is to estimate either the loss incurred by the plaintiff or the profits made by the

9

defendants.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Ho, 2009 WL 3047231, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18,
2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Plaintiff’s inspector indicated that Defendants’

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

establishment has a capacity of more than 110 people. Dkt. 17-3. Plaintiff submitted evidence

12

that it charged $3,200 for establishments with capacity of between 101-200 patrons. Dkt. 33-3.

13

The Court finds $3,200 in statutory damages to be appropriate here.

14

Plaintiff argues that the Court should award enhanced damages of $10,000. If a court finds

15

that violations of Section 605 were willfully committed “for purposes of direct or indirect

16

commercial advantage or private financial gain” then the court may enhance damages at its

17

discretion. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). When considering whether to enhance damages, courts

18

in this district often consider whether the defendant “(1) advertised the broadcast of the Program

19

to entice a larger crowd, (2) charged a cover to enter the establishment, or (3) charged a premium

20

for food and drinks on the night the broadcast was shown.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Herrera,

21

2011 WL 643413, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

22

Concepcion, 2011 WL 2220101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2011). Plaintiff does not attempt to

23

show that any of these factors have been met, but rather, argues that “it is established by case law

24

that unlawful broadcasts such as those at issue herein are committed willfully and for purposes of

25

financial gain.” Dkt. 46 at 7. Such a rule would render the above factors obsolete and strip courts

26

of their statutory discretion. Because Plaintiff makes no showing that an enhancement is

27

warranted as to these particular defendants and this specific violation, the court declines to

28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-01103-EJD
2

1
2

enhance damages.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should award more in damages in order to better

3

deter future unlicensed broadcasts. The court finds that the statutory award of $3,200, the $3,200

4

recommended in damages for conversion, plus the $9,789.29 recommended for in costs and fees to

5

be a sufficient deterrent.

6

For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

7

Judgment, adopts the Report and Recommendation subject to the analysis and modification above,

8

and grants the Motion to the extent that the Court increases the statutory damages, but denies the

9

request to award enhanced damages. Plaintiff may recover $6,400 in damages, and $9,789.29 in
costs and fees for a total of $16,189.29.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: August 18, 2019.
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-01103-EJD
3