J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Palmer
Filing
11
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court awards $3,445.00 to Plaintiff for liability and damages and fees. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 7/2/2018. (pts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
*
*
V.
*
BRENDA D. PALMER,
d/b/a A'S SPORTS BAR,
CV 118-062
*
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
ORDER
Defendant
September
13,
showed
a
2014,
boxing
without
match
first
in
her
night
obtaining
club
on
Plaintiff's
permission. In response. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging
violations
of federal law
Defendant
has
judgment.
not
and
appeared,
requesting
and
$110,000 in
Plaintiff
seeks
a
damages.
default
Plaintiff's motion (doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
I.
Plaintiff
events . . . ."
nationwide
2014,
is
"a
commercial
(Doc. 1 SI 9.)
television
boxing
Background.
match
distributor
sporting
As such, it held the "exclusive
distribution
rights" to
between "Mayhem" Floyd
Marcos Rene Maidana, II.
of
(Id. SI 7.)
a
September
Mayweather,
Jr.
13,
and
Businesses could not show
the fight without purchasing the rights to do so from Plaintiff.
(See id. SlSl 7-10.)
Plaintiff alleges that in September 2014 Defendant "was an
owner and/or a controlling manager" of A's Sports Bar, located
on Peach Orchard Road in Augusta, Georgia.
(Id. ^ 6.)
night
Plaintiff
of
the
investigator
While
inside
Mayweather-Maidana
to
A's
the
Sports
bar,
Bar.
the
fight.
(See
investigator
playing on five televisions.
Doc.
10-2
sent
at
witnessed
(Id. at 14.)
On the
an
14-16.)
the
fight
According to the
investigator. A's Sports Bar holds roughly 100 people.
(Id. at
15.)
Because Defendant was not authorized to show the fight at
A's Sports Bar, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, asserting claims
under
47
U.S.C.
§ 553
and
47
U.S.C.
§ 605.
Plaintiff
served
Defendant, but Defendant has failed to appear in this action or
respond to the complaint.
(See
Doc. 8.)
Plaintiff moved for
Clerk's entry of default, which the Clerk entered on April 30,
2018.
(Docs.
8,9.)
Plaintiff
now
moves
for
default
judgment.
(Doc. 10.)
II.
Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a court may enter
default
judgment
against
a
defendant
when
(1)
both
subject-
matter and personal jurisdiction exist, (2) the allegations in
the complaint state a claim against the defendant, and (3) the
plaintiff has shown the damages to
2
which it is entitled.
See
Pitts
ex
rel.
Pitts
v.
Seneca
Sports,
Inc.,
321
F.
Supp.
2d
1353, 1356-58 (S.D. Ga. 2004).
"[A]
defendant's
default
does
not
in
itself
warrant
the
court in entering a default judgment."
Nishimatsu Constr. Co.
V.
1206
Houston
Nat'l
Bank,
515
F.2d
1200,
(5th
Cir.
1975).
Default judgment is warranted only "'when there is a sufficient
basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered."
Surtain
Hamlin
Cir.
2015)
omitted).
And
Terrace
(citation
Found.,
omitted)
although
a
789
F.3d
(internal
"defaulted
1239,
1245
quotation
defendant
is
(11th
marks
deemed
to
admit
v.
the
plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, he is not held to
admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of
law."
Id.
omitted).
(citation
The
omitted)
upshot of this
(internal
quotation
standard is that "a
marks
motion
for
default judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure
to
state
default
a
claim."
judgment,
"complaint
Id.
a
contain[s]
Thus,
court
when
must
evaluating
look
sufficient
to
factual
see
matter,
a
motion
whether
for
the
accepted
as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft
V.
Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662,
678
(2009)
(citation
omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
A. Jurisdiction
Before entering default judgment, a court must ensure that
it
has
subject-matter
jurisdiction
over
the
jurisdiction
defendant.
3
over
Here,
the
the
case
and
Court
personal
has
both.
Because
Plaintiff's
claims
arise
under
federal
law,
the
Court
has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
because
Defendant
resides
in
Georgia,
the
Court
has
And
personal
jurisdiction over Defendant.
B. Liability
Plaintiff
U.S.C.
§ 605,
asserts
which
claims
under
prohibit
U.S.C.
§ 553
interception
of
and
47
cable
and
Although the Eleventh Circuit has
satellite programming.
the
47
not
yet addressed the issue, other courts, including district courts
in the Eleventh Circuit, have concluded that plaintiffs may not
recover
under
both
§ 605
and § 553
for
the
same
conduct.
TKR
Cable Co. v. Cable City Corp., 267 F.3d 196, 207 {3d Cir. 2001);
United States v. Norris, 88 F.3d 462, 465-69 (7th Cir. 1996); J
& J Sports Prods., Inc v. WB-Diversifled Auto Servs., Inc., No.
l:15-cv-2171-WSD,
2016).
Rather,
commercial
satellite
2016
WL
according
establishments
programming,
264935,
to
at
these
from
while
269435,
at
*2.
Like
intercepting
[§] 553
those
(N.D.
Ga.
courts, "[§] 605
that occur through a cable network."
WL
*2
and
addresses
Jan.
21,
prohibits
broadcasting
interceptions
J & J Sports Prods., 2016
courts,
this
Court
concludes
a
plaintiff may not recover under both statutes.
Plaintiff
does
not
Plaintiff
obtained
and
satellite
transmission.
specify
showed
in
the
However,
its
fight
because
complaint
through
the
whether
cable
elements
of
or
a
claim under § 605 and § 553 are the same, the Court will "giv[e]
4
Plaintiff
the
Plaintiff
benefit
for
failing
interception
since
knowledge."
Id.
omitted)
of
to
this
at
the
plead
may
*3
doubt"
be
and
the
""not
particular
exclusively
(alterations
(internal quotation
will
in
in
fault
manner
of
Defendant['s]
original)
marks omitted).
[]
(citation
To succeed
on
a
claim under either statute, a plaintiff must show (1) that the
defendant "intercepted the program," (2) that the defendant "did
not pay for the right to receive the transmission," and (3) that
the
defendant
"displayed
establishment."
the
program
to
patrons
of
[its]
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Just Fam, LLC, No.
l:09-cv-03072-JOF,
2010
WL
2640078,
at
*2
(N.D.
Ga.
June
28,
2010).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "did not contract with the
Plaintiff or pay the necessary sublicense fee required" to show
the fight, yet Defendant still "showed the [fight] at A's Sports
Bar on the night of September 13, 2014 . . . ." (Doc. 1 SISl 10,
12.)
Therefore,
Plaintiff
has
sufficiently
pleaded
a
claim
under § 553 or § 605.
C. Damages
Even
in
the
default-judgment
context,
"[a]
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
conduct
for
a
1264,
an
sum
1266
(11th
evidentiary
certain
or
Cir.
hearing
a
2003).
But
a
court
need
not
when "the
5
is
that
sum
plaintiff's claim
be
by
can
made
certain
computation."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1); SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d
1225, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005).
Both
§ 605
and
§ 553
allow
plaintiffs
actual damages or statutory damages.
award
statutory
violation.
47
finds
damages
the
that
between
to
$1,000
was
either
Under § 605, a court may
and
$10,000
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
violation
pursue
committed
And
for
if
each
a ''court
willfully
and
for
purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private
financial gain," a court may award up to an additional $100,000
for
each
violation.
court may award
for
each
Id.
between
violation,
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
$250 and $10,000 in
Under
§ 553,
a
statutory damages
id. § 553(c)(3) (A)(ii), and
up
to
$50,000
for willful violations, id. § 553(c)(3)(B).
Plaintiff
the
Court
to
has
elected
award
a
to
total
seek
of
statutory
$110,000.
damages
But
courts
and
asks
in
this
circuit, including this Court, "have ordered defendants to pay,
as statutory damages, the
amount of the license fee that they
would have been charged if they had actually been authorized to
show the program."
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Blanchard, No.
409-CV-100, 2010 WL 1838067, at *3 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2010); Joe
Hand
at
Promotions,
*3
(S.D.
Ga.
Inc.
Jan.
v.
Flynt,
7,
No.
2016).
6:15-cv-56, 2016 WL
Because
Plaintiff
93861,
has
not
provided a compelling reason for the Court to do so, it will not
stray from this method of calculating damages.
According to Plaintiff's investigator, A's Sports Bar can
hold about 100 people.
pricing
fight.
plan, it
(Id.
(Doc. 10-2 at 15.)
would
at
have cost
26.)
The
Under Plaintiff's
Defendant $2,200 to show
Court
therefore
awards
the
statutory
damages in the amount of $2,200.^
D. Attorneys' Fees
Plaintiff
§ 553(c)(2)(C)
also
and
requests
attorneys'
§ 605(e)(B)(iii),
which
recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees.
fees
allow
under
for
the
According to an invoice
submitted by Plaintiff's counsel, he spent 4.30 hours working on
this case, totaling $1,252.50 in fees.
(Doc. 10 at 5-6.)
Courts rely on, among other things, the ''going rate" in the
legal
community
when
deciding
amount of attorneys' fees.
604, 609 (11th Cir. 1990).
of deciding
Ala.
district
at
constitutes
a
reasonable
Martin v. Univ. of S. Ala., 911 F.2d
The "legal community" for purposes
what fees are reasonable is the district in
the court sits.
(N.D.
what
Knight v. Alabama, 824 F. Supp. 1022, 1027 n.l
1993).
$300
which
an
The
Court
hour.
has set
See
the
Plumbers
and
going
rate
in
Steamfitters
this
Local
No. 150 V. Rice, CV 115-200, Doc. 37 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2017).
Plaintiff's counsel's billable rate ranged from $200 an hour to
^ As noted, Plaintiff also seeks $100,000 in enhanced damages because,
Plaintiff
contends.
Defendant
willfully committed
the
violation.
But
Plaintiff does not offer any facts to support this allegation.
And although
the Court must deem well-pleaded facts admitted, it need not accept legal
conclusions as true.
See Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat^l Bank, 515
F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).
The Court thus declines to award enhanced
damages.
7
$375 an hour. (Doc. 10 at 5-6.)
Plaintiff's counsel billed .10
hours
hour;
at
the
adjusts the
rate
fee
recalculating
of
$375
an
for that .10
the
attorneys'
accordingly,
the
Court
hours from $37.50 to $30. After
fees
to
reflect
this
adjustment,
the Court determines the appropriate amount of total attorneys'
fees to award
in this case is $1,245.
In short, because Plaintiff's complaint contains sufficient
facts
showing
that
Defendant
committed
the
alleged
violation,
and because the Court is able to calculate Plaintiff's damages
without a hearing, default judgment is appropriate.
however,
declines to award damages in
the
The Court,
amount requested
by
Plaintiff.
Ill.
The
Court
GRANTS
IN
Conclusion
PART
AND
motion for default judgment. (Doc.
motion
with
respect
amount of $3,445.
to
liability
DENIES
10.)
and
IN
PART
Plaintiff's
The Court GRANTS the
damages
and
fees
in
the
But, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to
the extent Plaintiff requests additional damages.
The Clerk is
instructed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant in the amount of $3,445 and to CLOSE this case.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this
day of July,
2018.
'
J. RT^NDg^HALL,/CHIEF JUDGE
unite5;;^ates district court
-SOUTfT^N 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?