J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. CASTRO et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Default Judgment; within 60 days Plaintiff shall submit affidavits, proofs and briefing to justify the requested damages. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 10/30/14. (gh, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Docket No.: 14-cv-557
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
ESTEBAN CASTRO and TROLLEY CAR
BAR & GRILL CORPORATION d/b/a
TROLLEY CAR,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Communication Act of 1934, 47
U.S.C. § 605 and § 553, for unauthorized interception and broadcast of television
programming. Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37, as sanctions for failure to appear in court
pursuant to a court order. ECF No. 13. Defendants did not oppose. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
The mere fact of default does not entitle Plaintiff to judgment. To enter a
default judgment, the court must first determine whether a sufficient cause of action
has been stated, taking as true the factual allegations of the Complaint. See Chanel,
Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535-36 (D.N.J. 2008). Once a cause of
action has been established, the district courts must make explicit factual findings as
to three factors: (1) whether the party subject to default has a meritorious defense,
(2) the prejudice suffered by the party seeking default, and (3) the culpability of the
party subject to default. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Waldron, CIV. 11-849
RBK/KMW, 2013 WL 1007398, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Doug Brady,
Inc. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Funds, 250 F.R.D. 171, 177 (D.N.J. 2008);
1
Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987)). Although the facts
plead in the Complaint are accepted as true, Plaintiff must prove damages. See
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s problem
here is with the damages element.
Under either Section 553 or Section 605, a private party “aggrieved” by the
unauthorized reception of communications may be awarded statutory damages. 47
U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii); 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Under Section 553, these
damages range from $250 to $10,000, while under Section 605, they range from
$1,000 to $10,000. Id. The court chooses an amount within these ranges that it
“considers just” under the circumstances. Id. In addition, if the unauthorized
reception of the communications was done “willfully and for the purposes of direct
or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” the court has discretion
to award “enhanced damages,” increasing the range to $50,000 in the case of Section
553 and $100,000 in the case of Section 605. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B); 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); see also Waldron, 2013 WL 1007398, at *5.
Plaintiff’s moving papers request $10,000 to be awarded under Section
605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) against each Defendant. Plaintiff also requests $15,000 in
enhanced damages for a willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) against each
Defendant. Without the submission of any proofs or argument, however, the court
cannot determine whether the requested amount would be just in this case.
Therefore,
IT IS on this 30th day of October 2014 hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit affidavits, proofs, and briefing to prove
and justify the requested damages within 60 days of this order.
/s/ William J. Martini
_____________________________
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
2
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?