J&J Sports Productions Inc v. Bawlilai Corporation et al
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Bawlilai Corporation. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/14/2013) (axm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
§
BAWLILAI CORPORATION, Individually §
and d/b/a Nori Sushi and d/b/a Nori Sushi Bar §
& Grill; and XIU CHEN, Individually and
§
d/b/a Nori Sushi and d/b/a Nori Sushi Bar & §
Grill,
§
§
Defendants.
§
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-3811-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment, filed December 6,
2012. As the court has previously denied this motion with respect to Defendant Xiu Chen, this
order only addresses the motion as to Defendant Bawlilai Corporation.
After carefully
considering the motion, record, and applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Final
Default Judgment.
I.
Background
J&J Sports Production, Inc., (“J&J” or “Plaintiff”) sued Bawlilai Corporation (“Bawlilai”
or “Defendant”) as one of the defendants in this action. Plaintiff sued Bawlilai for alleged
violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605. J&J contends that Bawlilai illegally intercepted the
closed-circuit telecast of the September 19, 2009 “Number One” Mayweather, Jr./Marquez
Event, as well as the undercard or preliminary bouts (the “Event”). According to J&J, Bawlilai
did not pay the required licensing fee to J&J and did not receive J&J’s authorization to show the
Event. Summons was issued to Bawlilai on September 19, 2012, and Bawlilai was served on
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
October 15, 2012. The deadline for Bawlilai to answer or otherwise respond was 21 days after
service, which was November 5, 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Despite being served, Defendant,
as of the date of this opinion and order, has not served an answer or otherwise responded to
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. Further, the court determines that Bawlilai is not an infant,
mentally incompetent person, or a member of the United States military. The clerk of court
entered a default against Bawlilai on December 7, 2012.
J&J was the exclusive licensee through a licensing agreement, and Bawlilai did not have
authorization from J&J to show the Event at Bawlilai’s establishment. Plaintiff possessed the
proprietary right to exhibit and sublicense the Event through a licensing agreement with the
promoter of the Event. As such, J&J was licensed to show the Event at closed-circuit locations
throughout the state of Texas, and the Event was legally available to a commercial establishment
in Texas only if the commercial establishment had an agreement with J&J. No agreement
between J&J and Defendant existed that would have allowed Defendant to broadcast the Event to
patrons at Defendant’s establishment. On September 19, 2009, Bawlilai intercepted, or assisted
in the interception of, the transmission of the Event and broadcast or aired it for viewing by the
patrons of Defendant’s establishment. Plaintiff’s auditor observed the Event being telecast on
multiple televisions to patrons at Defendant’s establishment.
Based upon the record, evidence, and applicable law, the court concludes that Bawlilai
has violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, that J&J is an aggrieved party under the statute, and that
it is entitled to statutory damages and reasonable attorney’s fees for Bawlilai’s statutory
violations. Accordingly, the court determines that Bawlilai is liable to J&J in the amount of
$10,000, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), and J&J shall recover this amount from
Bawlilai. Further, the court determines that an additional $50,000 shall be awarded to J&J,
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), because the record reflects that Bawlilai’s action were
willful and for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Moreover, the court determines that such damages are necessary to deter Bawlilai and other
commercial establishments and entities from pirating or stealing protected communications.
The court also concludes that J&J is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees; however, the
court disagrees that reasonable attorney’s fees should be based on 33 1/3 percent of the damages
awarded. The court does not believe that such a fee is reasonable under the circumstances of the
case. The court believes that the lodestar method, that is, the number of hours reasonably
expended times a reasonable hourly rate, should apply in this case.
The lodestar method
adequately compensates Plaintiff’s counsel in this case for legal services performed. Plaintiff’s
counsel estimates that he has expended approximately four hours on this litigation and believes
that a blended hourly rate of $250 is reasonable for antipiracy litigation, considering his firm’s
experience with antipiracy cases. The court is familiar with Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm and
agrees that an hourly rate of $250 is certainly reasonable under the circumstances of this case.
The court, however, believes, after reviewing the record, that six hours is a better estimate of the
amount of time reasonably expended by counsel. Accordingly, the court awards Plaintiff $1,500
as reasonable attorney’s fees in this case. The court declines to award other attorney’s fees as
requested because the amount of such fees is speculative and unknown.
For the reasons herein stated, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default
Judgment. As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the court will issue a final default
judgment against Bawlilai and in favor of J&J in the total amount of $61,500. The judgment will
accrue postjudgment interest at the applicable federal rate of .12 percent from the date of entry
of the judgment until it is paid in full.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
It is so ordered this 14th day of August, 2013.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 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?