Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Beck et al
Filing
27
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court grants Plaintiff's request for statutory damages of $1,800.00 and attorneys' fees of $2,152.50. The Court directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Martin and 3 Owners Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Surreal at Surrey. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Beck will remain pending. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/11/2016. (thb)
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
SOUTHERN
AUGUSTA
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS,
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE
OF GEORGIA
DIVISION
*
INC.,
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v.
JASON BECK, CLINTON MARTIN,
individually, and as officers,
directors, shareholders and/or
principals of 3 Owners
Enterprise, Inc.; 3 OWNERS
ENTERPRISE, INC. d/b/a SURREAL
*
*
AT SURREY,
l:15-cv-80
*
*
*
*
*
Defendants.
ORDER
This
default
case
comes
judgment.
GRANTS IN PART
before
For
Plaintiff
Inc.
the
Court
reasons
on
Plaintiff's
discussed
Martin,
below,
for
the
Court
filed
Jason
Beck,
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
this
Matthew
suit
G.
d/b/a Surreal at Surrey
against
Widener,
Defendants
and
("Surreal").
Defendants violated either 47 U.S.C.
3
Owners
(Compl., Doc. 1.)
Enterprise,
The suit alleges that
§ 553
or
§ 605 by showing
UFC 163: Aldo versus Korean Zombie ("the Program")
August 3, 2013.
motion
Plaintiff's motion.
I.
Clinton
the
at Surreal on
Widener
answered,
from this case.
subsequently
(Docs.
13,
21,
26.)
never filed responsive pleadings.
clerk
entered
against
Beck
Plaintiff
default
and
then
against
Surreal
filed
on
the
judgment against Beck,
settlement
with
Beck.
Beck,
Martin
present
the pendency of this motion,
and
was
Martin,
dismissed
and Surreal
Upon Plaintiff's motion,
July
Martin,
settled,
27,
on
July
2015.
motion
16,
2015
(Docs.
for
and
18.)
of
default
(Doc. 22.)
and Surreal.
entry
16,
the
During
Plaintiff notified the Court of its
(Doc.
24.)
Below,
the
Court
considers
Plaintiff's motion against Martin and Surreal.
II.
A.
ANALYSIS
Requirements for Default Judgment
Federal
ability
to
Rule
of
grant
a
Civil
default
Procedure
55(b)
judgment
and
governs
vests
the
the
Court's
court
discretion to determine whether it should enter judgment.
ex rel.
(S.D.
Pitts v.
Ga.
Seneca Sports,
2004).
" [A]
Inc.,
Defendant's
321 F. Supp.
default
does
warrant the court in entering a default judgment.
a
sufficient basis
Nishimatsu
1206
Constr.
(5th Cir.
in
Co.
1975).1
1 In Bonner v.
the pleadings
v.
Houston
for the
Nat'l
A defendant,
City of Prichard,
Pitts
2d 1353,
not
with
in
1356
itself
There must be
judgment entered."
Bank,
515
F.2d
by his default,
661 F.3d 1206,
1200,
is only
1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the
former Fifth Circuit's decisions prior to October 1, 1981.
deemed
to
have
admitted
allegations of fact."
for
the
entry
of
liability; and (3)
Id.
the
"plaintiff's
Three distinct matters are essential
default
judgment:
damages.
Pitts,
under
28
Complaint,
Martin
is
principal
place
U.S.C.
of
Accordingly,
and
this
a
§
1331.
resident
has
jurisdiction;
(2)
2d at 1356.
the Court has subject-matter
business
Court
(1)
321 F. Supp.
On the jurisdictional element,
jurisdiction
well-pleaded
of
Georgia
is
personal
According
to
the
Surreal's
Augusta,
in
and
Georgia.
jurisdiction
over
Martin
Surreal.
The
Court
discusses
the
remaining
issues
of
liability and
damages below.
B.
Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605
When Plaintiff filed its
what
method
Accordingly,
both
47
Defendants
the
transmissions,
cable
§
Plaintiff,
sections.
Joe
605,
2010
WL
however,
Id.
Hand
for
intercept
only
*2
Inc.
(S.D.
recover
"In this circumstance,
v.
Ga.
under
Program.
claims
via
under
satellite
for interceptions,
Promotions,
at
the
"alleged
interceptions
§ 553,
1838067,
may
to
it could not determine
alternatively
and 47 U.S.C.
systems."
4:09-cv-100,
used
Complaint
U.S.C.
Complaint,
by way of
Blanchard,
No.
May
3,
2010).
one
of
those
the Court elects to give
Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and not fault it
for failing
to plead the particular manner of interception since this may be
exclusively
in
omitted).
Defendants'
The
Court
knowledge."
will,
Id.
therefore,
(alteration
examine
Martin
and
Surreal's liability under § 605.
Under the default
whether
the
§ 605.
For purposes
factual
allegations
appearing,
Constr.
"To
alleged
facts
of
state
a
liability,
contained
in
Co.,
Defendants
(1)
did
a
violation
the
the Court
the
liability
will
Complaint,
under
consider the
which,
have admitted.
and
patrons
pay
their
of
Inc.
July
(3)
v.
2,
lO-cv-00085-KD-C,
of
Defendants
not
transmission,
Ala.
for
assess
by
not
Nishimatsu
515 F.2d at 1206.
establish
Promotions,
the Court must
claim
Defendants are deemed to
establish that
(S.D.
judgment standard,
§
for
the
commercial
2015)
2011
No.
right
plaintiff
(2)
receive
the
the
program
establishment.'"
14-CV-348-KD-C,
1539878,
at
*4
Joe
2015
LLC v.
(S.D.
xmust
program,
to
displayed
(quoting Zuffa,
WL
a
intercepted the
Defendants
Neal,
605,
WL
Hand
4039076
Al-Shaikh,
Ala.
to
April
No.
21,
2011)).
Additionally,
Program
to
hold
at
Martin
showing
the
Surreal,
that he
had the "right and ability to
individually
Plaintiff
must
liable
also
for
establish
supervise the violations,
and that he had a strong financial interest in such activities."
Joe Hand Promotions,
1838067,
at
*3
Inc.
(S.D.
Ga.
v.
Blanchard,
May
3,
No.
4:09-cv-100,
2010) (quoting
J
&
2010 WL
J
Sports
Prods.,
*5
Inc.
(M.D.
v.
Fla.
The
Arboleda,
Oct.
27,
admitted
No.
6:09-cv-467,
2009
WL
3490859,
at
2009)).
facts
establish
the
following:
Plaintiff
possessed the right to distribute the Program via closed circuit
television
and
encrypted
establishments.
Program
to
(Compl.
cable
and
satellite signal.
relevant
f
(Id.)
licensees
to
were
Plaintiff
providers
however,
they
are
sub-licensees.
entities
granted the
in
right
to
the
commercial
distributed
television
Instead,
eventual
to
show the
via
a
are not the
a
The
State
the
means
actual
of
of
sub
Georgia"
to
Program publicly.
I 14.)
Martin
Surreal,
is
an
owner,
officer,
located in Augusta,
capacity
and
[Surreal]
on
agent
employee
or
control
August
over
3,
the
2013."
showed
Martin
and
for
authorization.
Surreal
the
displaying
The
Court
judgment as to liability.
are
director,
or
shareholder
of
Georgia and possessed "supervisory
activities
(Id.
11
Program
without Plaintiff's authorization.
§ 605
signal
These providers,
"various
whom Plaintiff
13.)
satellite
sub-licensees.
distribution
(Id.
satellite
(Id.
therefore
the
GRANTS
Program
at
occurring
6-8.)
Martin
Surreal
on
within
or
his
August
3
11 16-17.)
liable
under
at
Surreal
Plaintiff's
motion
47
for
U.S.C.
without
default
C.
Damages under 47 U.S.C.
§ 605
Section 605 permits either actual or statutory damages,
the Plaintiff's election.
case,
Plaintiff
22.)
elected to
With
respect
§ 605(e) (3) (C) (i) (II)
maximum
of
pursue
to
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i).
statutory damages.
statutory
damages,
In this
(Compl.
47
1
U.S.C.
provides a minimum award of $1,000 and a
$10,000
Additionally,
willfully
47 U.S.C.
at
for
each
violation
of
§
605(a).
if the Court finds that a "violation was committed
and
for
purposes
of
direct
or
indirect
commercial
advantage or private financial gain,
the court in its discretion
may
up
increase
the
award of
§ 605(e) (3) (C) (ii) .
had
no
reason
to
of this statute,
But
believe
4319,
(quoting
2013
47
"where
that
*the
his
to
$100,000.
violator
acts
was
constituted
WL
Joe Hand Promotions,
5526524,
U.S.C.
at
*3
n.2
Inc.
(N.D.
§ 605 (e) (3) (C) (iii)) .
v.
111.
47
not
an award of damages may be reduced
not less than $250.'"
C
damages"
a
U.S.C.
aware
and
violation'
Ato a sum of
Zani,
Oct.
Reasonable
7,
No.
11
2013)
attorneys'
fees are also available under § 605(e) (3) (B) (iii) .
Plaintiff seeks the maximum amounts of $10,000 in statutory
damages,
(Compl.
$100,000
1 21.)
in
enhanced
damages,
The Court finds that,
and
attorneys'
in this case,
fees.
damages are
"for a sum which can by computation be made certain" without the
need for a hearing.
Inc.
v.
Cir.
2011).
Fed.
Hollywood Gadgets,
R. Civ.
Inc.,
P.
55(b)(1);
see Tara Prods.,
449 F. App'x 908,
911-12
(11th
1. Statutory Damages
Plaintiff
argues
statutory maximum of
that
Defendants'
conduct
$10,000 in damages.
warrants
In support,
the
Plaintiff
cites district courts that have employed a multi-factor analysis
to determine the appropriate statutory damages award.
at
8
No.
(citing,
e.g.,
C-02-2768-SC,
2002))).
In
Universal Sports Networks,
2002
WL
fashioning
a
31109707,
at
*2
Inc.
(N.D.
statutory damages
(Doc. 22-2
v.
Cal.
award,
Jimenez,
Sept.
these
courts
have considered many factors including whether the defendant
a
repeat
Jimenez,
offender
the
extent
2002 WL 31109707,
at *2.
adopt this
of
the
financial
gain.
(Doc.
"other
Circuit—have
is
E.g. ,
Plaintiff urges the Court to
framework and to make deterrence a central
its analysis.
But
and
18,
factor in
22-2 at 8.)
courts—particularly
ordered
defendants
those
to
pay,
within
Eleventh
statutory
as
the
damages,
the amount of the license fee that they would have been charged
if they had actually been authorized to show the program."
Hand
Promotions,
1838067,
approach
at *3
taken
Inc.
(S.D.
by
v.
Ga.
Blanchard,
May 3, 2010).
district
courts
in
No.
4:09-cv-100,
2010
Joe
WL
The Court finds that the
the
Eleventh
Circuit
is
appropriate in this case.
According
Plaintiff
used
to
a
Joe
rate
Hand,
card
to
Jr.,
determine
Plaintiff's
the
president,
licensing
fee
for
the Program by reference to the licensed establishment's maximum
occupancy.
(Doc.
22-2
Ex.
1.)
Additionally,
Edward McKnight,
Plaintiff's
investigator,
estimated
capacity of 250-300 persons.
indicates
that
(Doc.
that
Surreal
22-2 at
has
16.)
a
The rate card
establishments with a maximum occupancy of
300 persons were charged $1,800 to show the Program.
2,
1
8;
Doc.
maximum
22-2,
Ex.
1.)
The Court,
therefore,
250-
(Doc. 22-
awards
$1,800
in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
2. Enhanced Damages
Plaintiff
enhanced
also
seeks
damages.
the
statutory maximum of
Enhanced
damages
are
$100,000
available
when
in
the
violation was "committed willfully and for purposes of direct or
indirect
U.S.C.
to
commercial
advantage
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
the
commercial
or
private
financial
gain."
47
Many courts look to factors relating
advantage
or
financial
gain
realized
by
defendants to determine whether such a violation occurred.
See,
e.g.,
2013
J & J Sports Prods.,
WL 228962,
at *5
(M.D.
Inc.
Jan.
Pa.
v.
Kraynak,
22,
2013
No.
10-cv-2486,
(noting courts consider
"the number of televisions broadcasting the event,
of a
cover charge,
event
in
defendants
the
made
sale of
food or drink,
defendants'
more
money
bar,
or
and
conducted
the existence
advertisement
a
of the
demonstration
additional
that
business
by
illegally broadcasting the event").
Plaintiff,
however,
illogical
and
infringing
activity,"
looking
to
argues
inconsistent
avoid,
because
not
that
with
such
the
test
very
"[c]ommercial
attract,
a
detection
nature
signal
for
is
"largely
of
pirates
their
the
are
unlawful
acts .
(Doc.
22,
Ex.
2
at
10.)
For
this
reason,
Plaintiff argues that this Court should follow other courts that
award enhanced damages
for
the
act
of
interception and not the
promotion of the event.
Plaintiff's preferred test
direct
gain"
or
indirect
out
of
the
commercial
statute.
J & J Sports Prods.,
WL
4512322,
at
all
Inc.
*4
(N.D.
reads
advantage
47
v.
but
U.S.C.
Bolano,
Cal.
No.
July
conjunctive nature of the statute) .
private
or
§
"for purposes
financial
605 (e) (3) (C) (ii) ;
5:14-cv-03939-BLF,
24,
2015)
of
(noting
For this reason,
see
2015
the
the Court
finds that a multi-factor analysis of the commercial purposes is
the proper inquiry.
See Kraynak,
Plaintiff
that
admitted
purposes
argues
that
of
they
direct
financial
gain."
elements,
however,
Ashcroft
v.
Defendants
have
Defendants
showed
alternatively
to
obtain
are
access
to
commercial
Bare
U.S.
662,
the
multiple
663
(id.
show
willful
necessary
to
Plaintiff's
Complaint
contains
a
no
advantage
1
private
a
claim's
allegations.
allegation
that
Complaint
also
may
but
have
without
violation.
allegations
for
Accordingly,
The
17),
and
have
or
of
factual
Defendants
Program
to
"willfully
(2009).
willfully.
specificity
deemed
Complaint's
methods
at *5.
recitals
well-pleaded
Program
the
are
Program
16.)
admitted
the
pleads
SI
not
556
not
the
indirect
(Compl.
Iqbal,
Defendants
showed
or
2013 WL 228962,
the
Moreover,
concerning
Defendant advertised or otherwise promoted the Program.
used
how
Accordingly,
necessary
to
4512322,
at
cv-00001,
Hand
award
*4;
case
enhanced
2014 WL 3749148,
at *5
Court
of
the
Inc.
that
47
additional
damages.
See
Inc.
v.
evidence
Bolano,
Plummer,
2015
No.
WL
3:14-
at *3 (N.D. Miss. July 29, 2014); Joe
v.
Becchetti,
(M.D. Pa. Aug.
finds
violation
lacks
Joe Hand Promotions,
Promotions,
4520638,
the
this
26, 2013).
Defendant's
U.S.C.
No.
§
12-cv-1242,
2013
WL
Without that evidence,
conduct
does
not
constitute
605 (e) (3) (C) (i) (11) .
The
a
Court,
therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's request for enhanced damages.
3. Attorneys'
In
addition
reasonable
(Doc.
Fees
22
attorneys'
at
5-7;
Plaintiff's
expended
damages,
fees
Decl.
counsel
litigating
attorneys'
evidence
to
fees.
regarding
under
of
this
U.S.C.
D.
at
§
of
5-7.)
the
Doc.
6.7
22-1.)
he
$2,152.50
in
hours
in
Plaintiff
The Court has
recover
provided
reviewed the
therefore,
no
evidence
the Court
fees of $2,152,50.
III.
For
to
605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
the
resulting
and finds the fees reasonable in this case;
awards attorneys'
seeks
Reemsnyder,
evidence
case,
22
costs.
47
Ronald
provides
(Doc.
Plaintiff
foregoing
CONCLUSION
reasons,
Plaintiff's
Motion
Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
for
Default
In particular,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against
Martin
and
Surreal.
The
Court
10
GRANTS
Plaintiff's
request
for
statutory damages of $1,800.00 and attorneys'
fees of $2,152.50.
The
enhanced
Court
Accordingly,
The
DENIES
the
Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff's
Court
the
awards
request
Plaintiff
for
a
total
of
Clerk to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
damages.
$3,952.00.
in
favor
of
Plaintiff and against Defendants Martin and 3 Owners Enterprise,
Inc.
d/b/a
Surreal
at
Surrey.
Plaintiff's
claims
against
Defendant Beck will remain pending.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
/ffs^day of May
2016.
HALL
UNITED STATES
W
11
DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT
OF
GEORGIA
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?