G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. C & J Sports Bar 2, LLC et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion for Default Judgment. The Clerk isDIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of G&G in the amount of $11,572.94$1,800 in statutory damages, $5,400 in enhanced damages, and $4,372.94 in attorneys� 39; fees. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for these damages. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to each Defendant at the address listed in the summons. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Grimberg on 1/3/2025. (tas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
C&J SPORTS BAR 2, LLC doing business as
ATL SPORTS BAR 2 and FRANKIE LAMONT
TURNER, SR.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.
1:24-cv-02789-SDG

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s application
for default judgment against Defendants C&J Sports Bar 2, LLC, doing business as
ATL Sports Bar 2, and Frankie Lamont Turner, Sr. [ECF 8]. For the following
reasons, the application for default judgment is GRANTED.
I.

Background
G&G filed this action to recover for violation of its rights as the exclusive

commercial domestic distributor of the Errol Spence Jr. v. Terence Crawford—
Championship Fight Program (the Program), which took place on July 29, 2023. 1
G&G sublicensed its rights to various businesses, including hotels, casinos, and
bars, but Defendants were not among those that contracted with G&G or paid the
necessary fee to display the Program in a commercial establishment. 2 The Program

1

ECF 1, ¶ 8.

2

Id. ¶¶ 9–10.

was shown at Defendant C&J Sports Bar 2, LLC (doing business as ATL Sports
Bar) despite this lack of a license. 3 Defendant Frankie Lamont Turner, Sr. was the
controlling manager or owner of ATL Sports Bar and is alleged to have had the
right and ability to control the broadcast of the Program. 4 G&G further alleges that
Defendants’ unauthorized broadcast was willful and undertaken for commercial
advantage and private financial gain. 5 G&G contends Defendants’ conduct
violated the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq., and the Cable &
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553, et
seq. As a result of these alleged violations, G&G seeks statutory damages,
enhanced damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs—a total of $114,372.94. 6
Turner was personally served with process, 7 and service on ATL Sports Bar
was effected by delivery of the summons and complaint to an authorized agent
(i.e., Turner). 8 Since neither Defendant responded to the Complaint, G&G sought
and received a clerk’s entry of default. 9 G&G now moves for default judgment. 10

3

Id. ¶¶ 11–12.

4

Id. ¶ 14.

5

Id. ¶ 15.

6

See generally ECF 1; ECF 8, ¶ 5.

7

ECF 6.

8

ECF 5.

9

ECF 7; Aug. 2, 2024 D.E.

10

ECF 8.

II.

Applicable Legal Standard
A plaintiff seeking default must first obtain a clerk’s entry of default by

providing evidence “by affidavit or otherwise” that the opposing party “has failed
to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). A default under Rule 55(a)
constitutes an admission of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint.
Beringer v. Hearshe, Kemp, LLC, 2011 WL 3444347, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2011)
(citing Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005)). The
plaintiff must then move the Court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b);
Frazier v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1360 n.1 (N.D. Ga.
2011) (“First the clerk must enter a party’s default . . . the party must then apply to
the court for a default judgment.”).
Entry of a default by the clerk does not, however, automatically warrant a
default judgment: A defaulting defendant does not admit facts that are not wellpleaded or conclusions of law. Frazier, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 1362; see also United States
v. Khan, 164 F. App’x 855, 858 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[A] default judgment may not
stand on a complaint that fails to state a claim.”). Nor does a defaulting defendant
admit allegations about damages. Frazier, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 1365. If the plaintiff is
seeking an uncertain or speculative damages amount, the Court “has an obligation
to assure that there is a legitimate basis for any damage award it enters.” Anheuser
Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003).

III.

Discussion
Defendants here were properly served and have failed to respond to the

Complaint or otherwise defend against this action. The well-pleaded allegations
in the Complaint are therefore deemed admitted.
A.

G&G Is Entitled to Judgment in Its Favor on Liability.

G&G asserts claims under the Communications Act (§ 605) and the Cable &
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (§ 553). Under either statute,
G&G must show that Defendants “(1) intercepted or received the Program, (2) did
not pay for the right to receive or to exhibit the Program, and (3) displayed the
Program to patrons of its commercial establishment.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.
Roussell, 2019 WL 5273962, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2019); see also J & J Sports Prods.,
Inc. v. Khin, 2016 WL 9046677, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016); J & J Sports Prods., Inc.
v. Just Fam, LLC, 2010 WL 2640078, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2010). 11

11

The Court notes there is a circuit split concerning whether §§ 553 and 605 cover
both satellite transmissions and cable programming transmitted over a cable
network. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Jones, 2019 WL 5280971, at *2 (N.D. Ga.
Apr. 18, 2019) (following reasoning from Third and Seventh Circuit and
holding “§ 605’s plain language prohibits commercial establishments from
intercepting and broadcasting satellite programming, while § 553 addresses
interceptions that occur through a cable network”). The Eleventh Circuit has
yet to address this issue. Id. The Complaint does not specify whether
Defendants broadcast the Program via satellite, cable, or internet. However,
the difference is immaterial to the Court’s ruling here.

G&G’s allegations are well-pleaded and state plausible claims under the
common elements of both §§ 553 & 605. Specifically, G&G alleged that it had
exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to the Program. 12 Defendants
broadcast the Program at ATL Sports Bar without paying for the rights to do so. 13
These allegations are deemed admitted by virtue of Defendants’ default. Further,
in support of its motion for default judgment, G&G provided evidence that
Defendants broadcast the Program to ATL Sports Bar’s patrons. 14 G&G is thus
entitled to judgment by default as to liability on both its counts.
B.

G&G Is Entitled to Damages.

Although G&G is entitled to default judgment as to liability, its damages
allegations are not admitted by Defendants’ default. Rather, the appropriate
damages must be determined by the Court. Frazier, 767 F. Supp. 2d at 1365
(citing Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Lacey, 510 F. Supp. 2d 588, 593 n.5 (S.D. Ala.
2007)). There is no per se requirement that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing.
Id.; see also Gibson v. Kirkwood Bar & Grill, LLC, 2014 WL 632357, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Feb.
18, 2014) (citing Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App’x 908, 911–
12 (11th Cir. 2011)) (“[A]n evidentiary hearing for a determination of damages is

12

ECF 1, ¶ 8.

13

Id. ¶¶ 11–14.

14

ECF 8-4.

not always required; rather, it is a decision that is left to the discretion of the
Court.”). The Court may award damages without a hearing if “the amount claimed
is a liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation.” Organizacion Miss
Am. Latina, Inc. v. Urquidi, 712 F. App’x 945, 948 (11th Cir. 2017).
Sections 553 and 605 authorize the Court to award actual or statutory
damages, enhanced damages (if the violation was willful), reasonable attorneys’
fees, and costs. As another judge of this Court has explained:
Under § 605, a court may award statutory damages
between $1,000 and $10,000 for each violation, and if a
violation is committed willfully and for purposes of
direct or indirect commercial advantage or private
financial gain, a court may award up to an additional
$100,000. Under § 553, a court may grant statutory
damages between $250 and $10,000 per violation, and up
to $50,000 may be awarded if the court finds that the act
was violated willfully and for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain. In addition to
damages, both § 605 and § 553 provide that a court shall
award the plaintiff full costs of bringing an action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Allen, 2011 WL 941502, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).
1.

Statutory Damages

G&G seeks the maximum statutory damages under §§ 553 or 605—
$10,000. 15 The Court is given “wide latitude . . . in awarding statutory damages.”

15

ECF 8-1, at 5–10; ECF 8-2, ¶ 6.

Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 852 (11th Cir. 1990).
And since the Court’s award falls within the permissible range authorized under
each statute, the distinction between the two statutes is immaterial here.
In the Eleventh Circuit, district courts differ in their approaches to awarding
statutory damages:
Some courts will award damages as a flat sum, while
other courts award the plaintiff the license fee the
defendant, based on its maximum capacity, would have
paid if it had legally purchased the event for exhibition.
Still other courts will, when the exact number of patrons
is known . . . base the award on the number of patrons in
the establishment who viewed the unauthorized
showing multiplied by a number set by the court.
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Space Millennium 2013 LLC, 2015 WL 13357907, at *3
(N.D. Ga. Sept. 17, 2015) (cleaned up).
Although statutory damages are appropriate when it is difficult to calculate
a plaintiff’s actual damages, Cable/Home Commc’n, 902 F.2d at 850, G&G has
provided no legal or factual basis to support an award of the maximum amount.
The investigator who visited ATL Sports Bar estimated the bar’s maximum
capacity as 100. 16 He saw the Program displayed to a maximum of 25 patrons on
up to seven screens. 17 The bar did not require patrons to pay a cover charge to

16

ECF 8-4, at 1.

17

Id.

watch the program. 18 There is no evidence that Defendants were repeat offenders,
that they marketed their broadcast of the Program, or that they charged anything
other than the normal rates for food and drink during the broadcast.
The most reasonable estimate of G&G’s actual damages, then, is the amount
it would have received had Defendants properly sublicensed the Program—
$1,800. 19 The Court therefore finds this amount is the appropriate statutory
damages award. Although G&G asserts that the Court should consider deterrence
in awarding statutory damages, 20 this factor is more appropriately assessed in
connection with enhanced damages.
2.

Enhanced Statutory Damages

G&G also seeks the maximum for enhanced statutory damages. 21
“Under both statutes, the district court is given discretion to award enhanced
damages where there is a finding of willful conduct done for purposes of
‘commercial advantage or private financial gain.’” Khin, 2016 WL 9046677, at *5
(quoting 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605). Here, Defendants’ violations were willful. G&G’s
president attested that its programming is encrypted and requires authorization

18

ECF 8-4, at 1.

19

ECF 8-3, at 23.

20

ECF 8-1, at 8–9.

21

The maximum enhanced damages available under § 605 is $100,000, 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), while the maximum under § 553 is $50,000, id. § 553(c)(3)(B).

of a commercial activation to broadcast. Thus, Defendants could not have
broadcast the Program unknowingly or without knowledge that they were doing
so improperly. 22 Instead of contracting with G&G, Defendants illegally
intercepted the Program. 23 Having defaulted, Defendants have also admitted
G&G’s allegations that they took deliberate, unauthorized acts to broadcast the
Program and did so for commercial advantage and private financial gain. 24
To determine if such willful conduct justifies enhanced damages, courts
consider several factors “[1] repeated violations over an extended period of time;
[2] substantial unlawful monetary gains; [3] advertising of the broadcast;
[4] charging of a cover charge or premiums for food and drinks; or [5] plaintiff’s
significant actual damages.” Just Fam, 2010 WL 2640078, at *3. None of these
aggravating factors is present. But courts have also held that willfulness is
established “by the fact that an event is broadcast without authorization.” Space
Millennium 2013, 2015 WL 13357907, at *3; Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Blanchard,
2010 WL 1838067, at *4 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2010). And, as G&G points out, there is a
strong need to deter the illicit conduct in which Defendants engaged.

22

ECF 8-3, ¶¶ 9–13.

23

Id. ¶¶ 7–8.

24

ECF 1, ¶ 15.

District courts in the Eleventh Circuit routinely calculate enhancement
awards by trebling the statutory damage amount. See, e.g., Jones, 2019 WL 5280971,
at *3; Khin, 2016 WL 9046677, at *5; J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Herbelaine, Inc., 2016
WL 9045967, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2016); Blanchard, 2010 WL 1838067, at *4; Just
Fam, 2010 WL 2640078, at *3. “The formula of three times the statutory award is
common . . . where the establishment is a first-offender, did not charge for entry,
did not charge a premium on drinks or food during the broadcast, and did not
advertise the broadcast.” Blanchard, 2010 WL 1838067, at *4. This rationale applies
here. The Court accordingly applies a three-times multiplier of the statutory
damage award for a total enhanced damages award of $5,400.
3.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

G&G is also entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 47 U.S.C.
§ 553(c)(2)(C), § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). It submitted evidence of the work performed by
its counsel and requests $4,372.94 in fees and costs. 25 Based on counsel’s
declaration and the supporting evidence, the requested amount is reasonable. As
such, G&G is entitled to $4,372.94 in fees and costs.
IV.

CONCLUSION
G&G’s motion for default judgment [ECF 8] is GRANTED. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of G&G in the amount of $11,572.94—

25

ECF 8-5.

$1,800 in statutory damages, $5,400 in enhanced damages, and $4,372.94 in
attorneys’ fees. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for these damages. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to each Defendant at the address
listed in the summons. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to close the case.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2025.

Steven D. Grimberg
United States District Judge