Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Triple J J J Travel Plaza Inc et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM RULING denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 9/12/2016. (crt,Dauterive, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-1235
VERSUS
TRIPLE JJJ TRAVEL PLAZA, INC., ET AL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Introduction
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is the owner of the exclusive rights to
distribute UFC and MMA fights through commercial closed circuit television. Plaintiff’s Ex.
P-1-2. Triple JJJ Travel Plaza, Inc. and its owners, directors, or managers, Bill Jones, Donna
Jones, and Shane Brooks (“Defendants”) purchased a “residential use only” license for a
UFC fight for display on a television inside their nightclub. Defendants purchased their
license directly from UFC’s website for $44.99. Defendants’ Exhibit A-1. On that website,
Defendants registered their Roku as the device to be used to stream the fight to their
television. Defendants’ Exhibit A-3.
The Terms of Use on the UFC website (Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-12) states that the user
is granted only a “personal, non-exclusive, non-assignable and non-transferrable license to
use and display, for home, non-commercial and personal use only, one copy” of the fight.
Similarly, the Roku account terms and conditions (Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-13) states that the
Roku service and the entertainment viewed through the Roku service are “solely for your
personal and non-commercial enjoyment.” Roku’s terms further provide: “These Terms of
Use do not grant you the right to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works or publicly
display such Entertainment.”
Prior to the fight, Defendants caused advertisements of the upcoming fight to be
displayed on Facebook and on the gas pumps on their premises. Those advertisements
promoted that the fight would be shown at Defendants’ nightclub. On the night of the fight,
an investigator associated with Plaintiff visited Defendants’ premises and confirmed that the
UFC fight was being shown on one of Defendants’ televisions. Defendants never purchased
a license from Plaintiff (or anyone else) to display the fight in a commercial establishment.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. 25. Plaintiff
essentially argues that (1) it owns the exclusive right to provide commercial licenses to
display the fight; and (2) Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the right to receive and display
the fight on a television in Defendants’ business premises. Plaintiff states that, based on its
commercial license fee schedule and the fire code capacity of Defendants’ establishment,
Defendants should have paid Plaintiff $950 for the right to receive and publish the fight.
Defendants argue that they did purchase the right to display the UFC fight by paying
Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”), the owner of all UFC fights, a $44.99 fee to stream the event on their
Roku device. Defendants argue that the laws applicable to the interception or improper
transmission of wire, radio, and cable signals do not apply to Defendants’ commercial
internet streaming in this case.
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff’s Rights Under the Distributorship Agreement
Plaintiff’s Distributorship Agreement (Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-1-2) with the owner of the
UFC event, Zuffa, granted Plaintiff the exclusive right to distribute the event over
commercial closed circuit television. Zuffa also granted Plaintiff permission to enter into
agreements with Direct TV, Dish Network, other DBS satellite providers and individual
cable system operators to act as authorized sources using cable and satellite technology to
broadcast the fight. Distributorship Agreement, ¶ 12. However, the Distributorship
Agreement did not grant Plaintiff the right, and Zuffa retained the right, to show the fight to
“residences, hotel rooms, dormitories, military base residential living, and all similar
locations, via any and all means and modes of pay-per-view television, internet, wireless,
broadband, and all other means or modes now known or hereafter developed.”
Distributorship Agreement, ¶ 2.
Analysis and Conclusion
The summary judgment evidence shows that Defendants purchased directly from
Zuffa the right to receive the fight for $44.99. In showing the fight to the customers of their
nightclub, Defendants violated the terms of use as set forth on the UFC (Zuffa) website, as
well as the Roku terms and conditions, limiting use of the fight for residential purposes only.
Other state or federal laws may also have been violated. The difficulty for the court, at least
on the summary judgment record alone, is that Plaintiff may not be the proper party to assert
claims against Defendants. Plaintiff’s distributorship makes a clear distinction between the
exclusive right given to Plaintiff (distribution of the fight on commercial closed circuit
Page 3 of 4
television) and the right retained by Zuffa (the right to show the fight to residences via the
internet). In other words, Defendants used the internet and their Roku device to violate
someone’s rights by publically displaying the fight in a commercial establishment after
having purchased only a residential license. That much is clear. But it is not clear that
Plaintiff is the proper party to assert that violation. And it is far from clear that Defendants’
violations were willful.
Based on this record, the best exercise of this court’s discretion is to deny the motion
for summary judgment and proceed to a trial where all of these issues can be fleshed out in
full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 12th day of September,
2016.
Page 4 of 4
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?