Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Beerberry Corp. et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 11/20/22 that plaintiff's 9 Motion for Default Judgment is Granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $16,639.50. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 11/20/2022 ) *Forwarded for judgment (RG)
Case 1:22-cv-05312-BMC Document 10 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 103
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOE HAND PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
: MEMORANDUM DECISION
: AND ORDER
- against : 22-cv-5312 (BMC)
BEERBERRY CORP., d/b/a Tap Beer, and
COGAN, District Judge.
This is an action for the recovery of statutory and enhanced statutory damages under the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, for the theft of a satellite TV signal. Defendants
have defaulted, and the Clerk has noted their default upon the docket pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(a). Before me is plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment under Rule
55(b). The motion is granted.
The following facts are taken from the complaint and the affidavits submitted with
plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is a distributor of sports and entertainment programming. It had
purchased the commercial distribution rights to the “Ultimate Fighting Championship® 242:
Khabib Nurmagomedov v. Dustin Poirier” (the “Program”). Establishments that contracted with
plaintiff to broadcast the Program were provided with electronic decoding equipment and
satellite coordinates necessary to receive and unscramble the signal.
Defendants never contracted with or obtained permission from plaintiff to broadcast the
Program. Plaintiff had an investigator in attendance at defendants’ bar on the night of the
broadcast. He reported a capacity for about 100 customers, each paying a $20.00 cover charge.
Case 1:22-cv-05312-BMC Document 10 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 104
For an establishment with that number of patrons, the usual license fee that plaintiff charges is
As an initial matter, “[o]nce default has been entered, the allegations of the Complaint
that establish the defendant’s liability are accepted as true, except for those relating to the
amount of damages.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Bimber, No. 07-cv-590S, 2008 WL 2074083,
at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008). However, “where the damages sought are not for a sum
certain, the court must determine the propriety and amount of the default judgment.” Id. (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)). Although the court can conduct an inquest as to damages, that is not
necessary where the damages are ascertainable from the proof that the plaintiff has submitted or
where statutory damages are sought. See, e.g., Quesada v. Hong Kong Kitchen Inc., No. 20-cv5639, 2021 WL 861800, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. March 8, 2021).
When a defendant has engaged in certain unauthorized publications or use of
communications in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, “the party aggrieved may recover the actual
damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are
attributable to the violation.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(I). As an alternative to actual damages, however,
the party aggrieved “may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation . . . in a sum
of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
In addition, the statute permits enhanced damages of up to $100,000 if the defendant’s theft of
the signal was willful “and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private
financial gain.” § 605(e)(3)(c)(ii).
Plaintiff has elected to seek statutory and enhanced damages. When the actual damages
suffered by the plaintiff and the profits realized by the defendant are not “ascertainable with
precision,” an award of statutory damages is appropriate. TWC Cable Partners v. Multipurpose
Case 1:22-cv-05312-BMC Document 10 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 105
Elecs. Int'l, Inc., No. 97-cv-2568, 1997 WL 833471, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 1997). Plaintiff’s
basis for statutory damages is based on what it would have received if defendant had properly
licensed the event, without regard to the defendants’ profits. This element of damages is not
“ascertainable with precision”; therefore, an award of statutory damages is appropriate.
Plaintiff has submitted evidence that the licensing fee would have been $1095. The
evidence is sufficient to support that award. According to its posted rates, plaintiff would have
charged defendants that amount if defendants had not stolen the signal.
Plaintiff also requests enhanced damages of $15,000 out of a statutory maximum of
$100,000. This kind of signal theft is virtually always willful, as plaintiff notes. See J & J
Sports Prods., Inc. v. Hot Shots, Inc., No. 09-cv-1884, 2010 WL 3522809, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. April
27, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 3523003 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2010).
Willfulness is further indicated here by defendants’ default and collection of a cover charge. See
id. Fifteen thousand dollars, for what appears to be a small establishment, in addition to
statutory damages of $1,095, should be adequate to deter defendants and others from stealing
signals in the future.
That amount is also recoverable against the individual defendant, Dmitriy Nechiporenko,
jointly and severally, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. Nechiporenko personally holds the liquor
license for the bar that is co-defendant in this action. He also has held himself out as its owner
and active operator in other ways. Specifically, The New York State Assemblyman for this
district is Steven H. Cymbrowitz (A.D. 45). Assemblyman Cymbrowitz posed for a picture in
his seasonal newsletter with Nechiporenko inside the bar. In that newsletter, Assemblyman
Cymbrowitz touted his efforts to have a “foul smelling catch basin cleared” so that Nechiporenko
could open the bar. In the background of the picture, one can clearly see the multiple television
Case 1:22-cv-05312-BMC Document 10 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 106
screens used to attract customers to sporting events and, as this case shows, make money off
stealing signals. (Perhaps Assemblyman Cymbrowitz should have a talk with Mr. Nechiporenko
about running his bar legitimately before he does him any more favors.) And in addition to all
that, Nechiporenko’s Facebook page contains a message from him proclaiming “WE ARE
OPEN! NEW TAP BEER) [sic] 1781 SHEEPSHEAD BAY ROAD. WELCOME
EVERYBODY))) [sic].” That is more than sufficient to impose joint and several liability under
47 U.S.C. § 605.
Finally, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) mandates that a court “shall direct the recovery of
full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.”
Plaintiff is seeking $1095 in attorneys’ fees and $544.50 in costs. The rates plaintiff seeks are a
little high for this kind of case but the timeslips show that the work was done efficiently. The
$1680 fee is more than reasonable for a case like this and that fee, plus the claimed costs, are
Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment  is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount
Digitally signed by Brian M.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 20, 2022
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?