J&J Sports Production Inc. v. Kim et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 7 MOTION for Default Judgment as to All Defendants filed by J&J Sports Production Inc. is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/29/16. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
J&J Sports Production, Inc. ,
Plaintiff,
v.

C.A. No . 14-1170-LPS

Scott Kim and Kooma, DE, Inc.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion For Default Judgment (the "Motion") filed by
Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. (D.I. 7) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs Motion.

BACKGROUND
The dispute between the parties involves the distribution rights for a televised boxing
match between middleweight champion Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. and Sergio Martinez. The
fight, titled "Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez, WBC Middleweight Championship
Fight Program," took place on September 15, 2012. Plaintiff contracted with event organizers
to obtain exclusive broadcast rights to the match. After obtaining the broadcast rights, Plaintiff
sold licenses authorizing several commercial entities to publicly display or exhibit the fight.
Defendants Scott Kim and Kooma, DE, Inc. own and operate Kooma Restaurant and
Lounge Bar in Wilmington, Delaware. Defendants did not obtain a license from Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, Defendants displayed and exhibited the fight, at the time of its broadcast, to
patrons of the Kooma Restaurant and Lounge.
On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging violations of 47 U.S.C.

1

§ 553 . (D.I. 1) Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants' actions constituted unlawful conversion
under Delaware law. (Id.) On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff effectuated service on Defendants.
Defendants failed to answer the complaint or enter an appearance. (See D.I. 7) Accordingly,
on December 16, 2014, Plaintiff requested an entry of default against Defendants pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (D.I. 5) Default was entered on February 5, 2015 by the
Clerk of the Court. (D .I. 6)
On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Rule
55(b )(2), requesting that the Court enter an Order of Judgment by Default against Defendants
for statutory damages equal to $100,000, along with reasonable attorneys fees and court costs,
as authorized by statute. (D .I. 7)

LEGAL STANDARDS
Entry of default judgment is a two-step process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), (b). First, a
party seeking to obtain a default judgment must request that the Clerk of the Court "enter . . .
the default" of the party that has not answered the pleading or "otherwise defend[ ed]" within
the time required by the rules or as extended by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). A party
who defaults by failing to plead or defend does not admit the allegations in the claims as to the
amount of damages. See Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir.
1992). After obtaining an entry of default, a plaintiff can obtain a default judgment. If the
plaintiff's claim is "for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain," the plaintiff may
obtain default judgment from the court clerk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). "In all other cases, the
party must apply to the court for a default judgment." Id. Default judgment may not be granted
if the defendant is a minor or is incompetent. See id.

2

DISCUSSION
The Court will grant Plaintiffs Motion. Despite being properly served and informed
about the proceeding, Defendants failed to answer the Complaint or "otherwise defend"
themselves in this action. There is no evidence before the Court that the defaulting Defendants
are infants, have been declared incompetent, or are currently in the military or otherwise
exempted from default judgment under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50
U.S.C. § 520. (See D.I. 7 Ex. A) The Clerk of Court entered default many months ago, and
Defendants have not taken any action in response.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (D.I. 7) is GRANTED.

2.

The Court will enter a separate Order in the form proposed by Plaintiffs. (See

D.I. 7-1)

e_
__.J.
March 29, 2016
Wilmington, Delaware

HON. LEO ARD P. STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3