J&J Sports Productions Inc v. 800 Grand Family LLC et al
Filing
45
ORDER and OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 40 Report and Recommendation, granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/25/2018. (asni, ) Modified on 10/25/2018 (asni, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
J&J Sports Productions, Inc.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
800 Grand Family, LLC, doing
)
Business as Skores, also known as
)
Primetime Sports Bar and Grill;
)
and Sandra F. Simpkins,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 3:17-cv-02413-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court for review of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’s
(“Magistrate Judge”) Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on October 1, 2018 (ECF
No. 40). The Report addresses Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and recommends that the court grant the Motion. (ECF No. 40 at 9–10.) For the
reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the Report and GRANTS the Motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) As brief background, Plaintiff filed its
Complaint on September 8, 2017, alleging causes of action for conversion and violations of the
Communications Act of 1934 (as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605) and the Cable & Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 554) against
Defendant 800 Grand Family, LLC (“Grand Family”), d/b/a/ Skores, a/k/a/ Primetime Sports Bar
and Grill (the “Establishment”), and its member Defendant Sandra F. Simpkins (“Simpkins”)
(collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) Grand Family has not made a proper appearance in
1
this court, and the court entered default against it on November 3, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) On
August 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 30.) The Magistrate
Judge issued a Roseboro Order1 on August 6, 2018, to Simpkins as she is proceeding pro se and
advised her of the consequences of failing to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 31.) On
that same day, the Roseboro Order was mailed to Simpkins. (ECF No. 32.) Simpkins filed a
Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on September 7, 2018. (ECF No.
36.) Plaintiff filed a Reply to Simpkins’s Response on September 17, 2018. (ECF No. 39.)
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 1, 2018. (ECF No. 40.) The Report
concluded that Grand Family violated 47 U.S.C. § 553 by broadcasting a program to which
Plaintiff had exclusive commercial distribution rights without paying a commercial licensing fee
or obtaining permission to broadcast the program. (ECF No. 40 at 2–3.) The Report
recommended statutory damages of $3,250.00, which is the amount equal to a license fee plus
the gross profit. (Id. at 7.) The Report found that Simpkins is individually liable, jointly and
severally with Grand Family, for the basic statutory damages of $3,250.00 because she “had the
right and ability to supervise all activities at the Establishment and also had a strong financial
interest in such activities.” (Id. at 7–8.) The Report recommended imposing on Grand Family
enhanced statutory damages of $9,750.00, the amount equal to three times the basic statutory
damages, because the manager of the Establishment willfully diverted the program. (Id. at 8.)
The Report recommended granting Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and directed Plaintiff to
file an affidavit of its attorneys’ fees within 14 days. (Id. at 9.) 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C) states
that the court may “direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’
fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” The parties were apprised of their opportunity to file
1
A Roseboro Order requires district courts to provide an explanation of summary judgment
procedures in habeas corpus cases. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975).
2
objections to the Report on October 1, 2018. (ECF No. 40 at 9.) Neither party objected to the
Report.
Plaintiff filed a timely Affidavit as to Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 44) on October
12, 2018, for an award of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) in attorneys’ fees and
one thousand three hundred forty-one dollars and nine cents ($1,341.09) in expenses. (Id.) After
reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion and Affidavit, the court finds that Plaintiff’s request for fees is
reasonable and that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under § 553(c)(2)(C) in the
requested amount.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, a failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a
party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the court based upon such
3
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
accurately summarizes the law and correctly applies it to the instant Complaint. (ECF No. 1.)
Since no specific objections were filed by either party, the court adopts the Report herein.
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
IV. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 40) and incorporates it herein.
The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) and (1) awards
Plaintiff general statutory damages of $3,250.00 jointly and severally against Defendants
Simpkins and Grand Family; (2) awards enhanced damages of $9,750.00 against Grand Family;
and (3) grants $1,500.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,341.09 in expenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
October 25, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
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?