J&J Sports Productions Inc v. Zeqiri

Filing 10

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion for Default Judgment filed by J&J Sports Productions Inc. If J&J is able to provide supplementary briefing and evidence to support its request for courtcosts, it is ORDERED to do so by 10/19/2015. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 10/7/2015) (ykp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
as Broadcast Licensee of the
December 3, 2011 “Good v. Evil”:
Cotto/Margarito Program,

Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH ZEQIRI,
individually and, d/b/a/ RALPH’S PIZZA
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-4216-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc.'s Motion for Default Judgment (doc.
8), filed April 17, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a case about alleged violations of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 (the FCA). Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. (J&J) is in the
business of marketing and licensing closed-circuit, pay-per-view prizefighting events to commercial
establishments. Doc. 8-1, Pl.’s Ex. A, Affidavit of Thomas P. Riley (Riley Aff.) ¶ 4. As part of this
business, J&J acquired the proprietary rights to exhibit and sublicense the December 3, 2011, “Good
v. Evil”: Angel Cotto v. Antonio Margarito WBA Super World Light Middleweight Championship
-1-

Fight Program, including the undercard and preliminary bouts (the Event). Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5.
It then marketed and distributed exhibition rights to the Event to commercial locations throughout
Texas in exchange for a fee. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7. To prevent unlicensed establishments from exhibiting the
Event without a license, the transmission was electronically coded or “scrambled.” Id. at ¶¶ 8–10.
Establishments that had bought the broadcast rights were provided with electronic decoding
equipment to unscramble the signal. Id. Zeqiri did not obtain a license, but nevertheless broadcast
the Event to the patrons of his establishment, Ralph’s Pizza, on December 3, 2011, according to J&J.
Id. at ¶ 11.
On November 26, 2014, J&J filed this case against Zeqiri, alleging he willfully violated the
FCA for commercial gain. Id. at ¶¶ 12–15. It asks for statutory and additional damages under the
FCA; a permanent injunction preventing Zeqiri from intercepting or exhibiting future J&J programs
without a license; court costs; attorney’s fees; and pre and post-judgment interest. Id. at 4–5.
J&J served Zeqiri with its Complaint on January 15, 2015. Doc. 5, Aff. of Service 2. Nothing
in the record indicates Zeqiri ever responded. Accordingly, J&J requested the court clerk make an
entry of default on April 17, 2015. Doc. 8, Request for Clerk to Enter Default. That same day, it
moved the Court for a default judgment. Doc. 9, Mot. for Default J. Three days later, the court clerk
issued an entry of default. Doc. 9, Clerk’s Entry of Default. Now the Court considers J&J’s Motion
for Default Judgment. To date, Zeqiri has not made an appearance in this case.

-2-

II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal courts have the authority to
enter a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend upon
motion of the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)–(b). That being said, “[d]efault judgments are a drastic
remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Sun
Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989). A party is not
entitled to a default judgment merely because the defendant is technically in default. Ganther v. Ingle,
75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996). “Rather, a default judgment is generally committed to the
discretion of the district court.” United States v. 1998 Freightliner Vin #: 1FUYCZYB3WP886986, 548
F. Supp. 2d 381, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (citing Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977)).
In determining whether a default judgment should be entered against a defendant, courts
have developed a three-part analysis. See, e.g., 1998 Freightliner Vin #: 1FUYCZYB3WP886986, 548
F. Supp. 2d at 384. First, courts consider whether the entry of a default judgment is procedurally
warranted. See Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). The relevant factors
include:
[1] whether material issues of fact exist; [2] whether there has been substantial
prejudice; [3] whether the grounds for default are clearly established; [4 ]whether the
default was caused by a good faith mistake or excusable neglect; [5] the harshness of
a default judgment; and [6] whether the court would think itself obliged to set aside
the default on the defendant’s motion.
Id.
Second, courts assess the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims and determine whether
there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v.
-3-

Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (noting that “default is not treated as an
absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover.”). In doing
this, courts should assume, that due to its default, the defendant admits all well-pleaded facts in the
plaintiff’s complaint. Id. But “defendant is not held to admit facts that are not-well pleaded or to
admit conclusions of law.” Id.
Third, courts determine what form of relief, if any, the plaintiff should receive. See, e.g., 1998
Freightliner Vin #: 1FUYCZYB3WP886986, 548 F. Supp. 2d at 384. Normally, courts should not
award damages without a hearing, unless detailed affidavits establish the necessary facts. See United
Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979). But if it can determine the amount of
damages with mathematical calculation, by referencing the pleadings and supporting documents, a
hearing is unnecessary. James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).
III.
ANALYSIS
Applying this three-part analysis, the Court ultimately concludes that a default judgment here
is (1) procedurally warranted; (2) supported by a sufficient factual basis in J&J’s Complaint; (3) and
that, because the Court can determine the amount of damages with mathematical calculation by
referencing information in the pleadings and supporting documents, a hearing is unnecessary. See
James, 6 F.3d at 310. Thus, J&J is entitled to a default judgment against Zeqiri for his alleged FCA
violations in the amount of $7,000—$6,000 in statutory violations plus $1,000 in attorney’s fees.
A.

Whether An Entry of Default Judgment Is Procedurally Warranted
After applying the six Lindsey factors to J&J’s Motion, the Court determines that default

-4-

judgment is procedurally warranted. First, Zeqiri has not filed any responsive pleadings, so there are
no material facts in dispute. Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893; Nishimatsu Constr., 515 F.2d at 1206 (noting
that “[t]he defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well pleaded allegations of fact”). Second,
Zeqiri’s “failure to respond threatens to bring the adversary process to a halt, effectively prejudicing
Plaintiff’s interests.” Ins. Co. of the W. v. H & G Contractors, Inc., No. C-10-390, 2011 WL 4738197,
at *3 (citing Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893). Third, given that Zeqiri has had almost a year to either file
an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, or else explain why he has not done so, the grounds for default
are clearly established. Cf. Elite v. The KNR Group, 216 F.3d 1080 (Table), 2000 WL 729378, at *1
(5th Cir. May 19, 2000) (per curiam) (holding default judgment to be inappropriate where defendant
sent letter to court explaining his failure to appear was due to financial privation). Fourth, there is
no evidence before the Court to suggest Zeqiri’s silence is the result of a “good faith mistake or
excusable neglect.” Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893. Fifth, J&J seeks only the relief the law provides it, and
Zeqiri has no applicable defense to its claims, at least as far as this Court can see, which “mitigat[es]
the harshness of a default judgment.” John Perez Graphics & Design, LLC v. Green Tree Inv. Grp.,
Inc., No. 12-CV-4194-M, 2013 WL 1828671, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2013). Sixth, and finally, the
Court is not aware of any facts that would give rise to “good cause” to set aside the default, if it were
challenged by Zeqiri.
B.

Whether There Is a Sufficient Basis for Judgment in the Pleadings

In light of the entry of default, Defendant is deemed to have admitted the allegations set forth
in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Nonetheless, the Court must review the pleadings to determine whether
they present a sufficient basis for Plaintiff’s claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr., 515 F.2d at 1206. In

-5-

conducting this analysis, the Fifth Circuit has looked to the Rule 8 case law for guidance:
Rule 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of this requirement is “to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The factual allegations in the complaint need only
“be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id.
(footnote and citations omitted). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required,
but the pleading must present “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 498 (5th Cir. 2015).
J&J alleges Zeqiri “willfully intercepted and/or received the interstate communication of the
Event,” or, alternatively, “assisted in the receipt of the interstate communication of the Event.” Doc.
1, Compl. ¶ 11. Then, according to J&J, Zeqiri “transmitted, divulged and published [the Event]
. . . to patrons within [his establishment] . . . willfully and with the express purpose and intent to
secure a commercial advantage and private financial gain. Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. This not only “infringed
upon [J&J’s] exclusive rights” to broadcast the Event, id. at ¶ 12, but also violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 553
and 605, id. at ¶ 16, according to J&J.
A person violates 47 U.S.C. § 605 when he “intercept[s] any radio communication . . . or
receive[s] or assist[s] in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use[s] such
communication . . . for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(a)(6). A person violates 47 U.S.C. § 553 when he “intercept[s] or receive[s] or assist[s] in
intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system” without
authorization. Id. § 553(a)(1). And when a person intercepts satellite or cable transmissions without
authorization, he violates both sections. Entm’t by J & J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769,
-6-

774 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Here, J&J alleges the Event was transmitted via an “electronically coded or
‘scrambled’” satellite signal, and that Zeqiri intercepted it without authorization and exhibited it to
patrons of his establishment for his own commercial benefit. Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 8–12. After reviewing
the Complaint, the Court concludes that J&J’s allegations state a viable claim for relief and are
sufficient to provide Zeqiri with “fair notice” of its claim that he “transmitted, divulged and published
[the Event] . . . to patrons within [his establishment]” in violation of the FCA. Id. at ¶ 11.
C.

Damages
“A defendant’s default concedes the truth of the [Complaint’s] allegations . . . concerning

[his] liability, but not damages.” Ins. Co. of the W., 2011 WL 4738197, at *4 (citing Jackson v. FIE
Corp., 302 F.3d 515, 521, 524–25 (5th Cir. 2002)). Ordinarily, a Court must hold a hearing to
establish damages. See United Artists Corp., 605 F.2d at 857. But this is not always the case. If
pleadings, affidavits, and supporting documents allow a Court to determine damages by mathematical
calculation, a hearing is unnecessary. Id; James, 6 F.3d at 370.
Here, J&J alleges Zeqiri violated section 605 of the FCA, which allows aggrieved parties to
choose between receiving statutory and actual damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i). Statutory
damages call for an award between $1,000 to $10,000, per violation, as the Court finds just. Id. §
605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). If a Court finds a defendant violated the statute “willfully and for purposes of
direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may increase the damage award
by up to $100,000, at its discretion. Id. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). In any event, an aggrieved party who
prevails receives full costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
1.

Statutory Damages

-7-

J&J maintains that “it would be impossible to determine the full extent of the profits” it lost
and “the additional damages sustained . . . as a result of [Zeqiri’s] unlawful actions.” Doc. 8, Pl.’s
Mot. for Final Default J. (Pl.’s Mot.) ¶ 7. For that reason, it requests statutory, rather than actual,
damages, asking for $10,000—the statutory maximum—against Zeqiri.1 Id. at 9–10. J&J argues it is
entitled to the maximum because, as a result of Zeqiri’s actions, it lost revenue, was denied the
“‘value, benefits and profits [it would have] derived from the unauthorized broadcast of the Event[,]”
and lost out on “the value of [th]e ‘business investment, business opportunities and goodwill’” it
might have otherwise enjoyed. Id. at ¶ 8 (quoting Am. Television & Commc’ns. Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.,
629 F. Supp. 1462, 1466 (M.D. Fla. 1986)).
To support these assertions, J&J presents an affidavit from Thomas P. Riley, whose firm was
charged with “the discovery, investigation and prosecution of claims arising from the theft or piracy
of . . . [the Event].” Doc. 8-1, Pl.’s Ex. A, Riley Aff., App. 5. Riley insists Zeqiri’s actions threaten
J&J’s existing and ongoing viability. Id. at 7–9. He explains that, by broadcasting sports events like
this one without obtaining a required license, Zeqiri and other proprietors are effectively able to
either not charge their patrons a fee, or else charge them a fee less than what other, authorized
establishments are required to charge. Id. at 7–8. This causes establishments that lawfully broadcast
programs to lose business, patrons, and, ultimately, the ability to contract with J&J to obtain future
licenses to broadcasts. Id. In sum, Zeqiri’s actions damaged the goodwill and reputation of J&J, and
impaired both its right and ability to control and receive fees for transmitting its programs. Id.

1

The Court notes that J&J cannot recover under both sections 553 and 605, even if it can
demonstrate Zeqiri violated both. Al-Waha Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 775. Therefore, the damages inquiry
will focus only on section 605, which allows J&J a greater recovery. Id.
-8-

Courts have assessed different amounts of statutory damages when presented with violations
similar to Zeqiri’s. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alima, No. 13-CV-0889-B, 2014 WL 1632158,
at *4 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014) (awarding base statutory damages in the amount of $5,000); J &
J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Beck, No. L-13-57, 2013 WL 5592333, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2013) (same);
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Q Café, Inc., No. 10-CV-2006-L, 2012 WL 215282, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
25, 2012) ($10,000); Al-Waha Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 776 ($5,000). Here, considering the need
to deter future FCA violations, and the fact that Zeqiri would have faced a sublicensing fee of
approximately $1,200 had he actually paid to lawfully broadcast the Event, the Court determines
that $5,000 in statutory damages is reasonable. See Doc. 8-1, Ex. A-2, Aff. of Ana Saldana (Saldana
Aff.), App. 21 (capacity of the establishment is approximately sixty people); Doc. 8, Ex. A-3, Rate
Card, App. 26 (rate for establishment with 0–100 minimum seating is $1,200); see, e.g., Al-Waha
Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 776 (“Merely requiring Al-Waha to pay the price it would have been
charged to obtain legal authorization to display the event does nothing to accomplish this object [to
deter future violations of the FCA].”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS J&J’s request for statutory
damages and awards it $5,000.
2.

Additional Damages

J&J requests an additional $50,000 in damages under to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), based
on its allegation that “[Zeqiri’s] actions were willful and ‘for purposes of direct or indirect commercial
advantage or private financial gain.’” Pl.’s Mot. ¶ 12 (citations omtted). J&J presents no evidence
demonstrating Zeqiri willfully violated the FCA, but insists he could not have “innocently” accessed
the Event broadcast given how complex it is to intercept a transmission. Id. at ¶ 13. Courts have

-9-

generally found this reasoning persuasive, as there are limited means by which defendants can access
closed-circuit, pay-per-view events, and because it would be unlikely for an establishment to
intercept such broadcasts by chance. See Al-Waha Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 777 (finding willfulness
given the “limited methods of intercepting closed circuit broadcasting of pay-per-view events” and
“the low probability that a commercial establishment could intercept such a broadcast merely by
chance”); Q Café, Inc., 2012 WL 215282, at *5 (citing Time Warner Cable v. Googies Luncheonette,
Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 485, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“There can be no doubt that the violations were
willful and committed for purposes of commercial advantage and private gain. Signals do not
descramble spontaneously, nor do television sets connect themselves to cable distribution systems.”)).
Based on this line of cases, the Court likewise concludes that J&J’s evidence and allegations are
sufficient to support a finding of willfulness.
Further, the record indicates that Zeqiri exhibited the Event for either direct or indirect
commercial gain, as there were approximately three patrons in his restaurant the evening in question.
Doc. 8-1, Ex. A-2, Saldana Aff., App. 21. While nothing indicates Zeqiri’s establishment charged
these patrons a cover for admission, it did sell them food and beverages. Id. at 20; Doc., 8, Pl.’s Mot.
¶ 16. This has been enough for other courts to find a commercial motive. See Beck, 2013 WL
5592333, at *2 (finding commercial motive based on the fact that “patrons purchased food and/or
drinks while viewing the Event” and because “it is obvious that commercial establishments show
sports programs to draw business, not out of charity”). It is enough for this Court, as well; there is
sufficient evidence to establish Zeqiri had a commercial motive.
Having found willfulness and commercial motive, the Court moves to the statute’s language.

- 10 -

The FCA allows “the court, in its discretion,” to “increase the award of damages, whether actual or
statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000” for willful violations. 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(C)(ii). This leeway has led courts to different approaches and results. See, e.g., Alima, 2014
WL 1632158, at *5 (awarding four times the statutory base award as additional damages where
defendant charged a cover and showed the event on nine screens to approximately 85 to 125
patrons); Q Café, Inc., 2012 WL 215282, at *5 (awarding five times the statutory base award where
the defendant broadcast the event in an urban area and the Court noted the importance of deterring
future violations); Beck, 2013 WL 5592333, at *3 (awarding three times the base because defendant
did not charge a cover charge, only thirty patrons viewed the event, and defendant was not a repeat
offender); Al-Waha Enters., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 777 (awarding three times the base for a willful
violation); Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Scott E’s Pub, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 955, 960 (E.D. Wis.
2001) (awarding five times the base statutory amount because defendant advertised the event,
charged a cover, and showed the event on five television monitors). Here, J&J provided evidence
of an auditing visit, where investigator Saldana observed Zeqiri violating the FCA. Doc. 8-1, Ex. A-2,
Saldana Aff. App. 20–21. Though the affidavit notes that Zeqiri’s establishment was equipped with
three televisions, it is not clear whether the Event was displayed on one, two, or three screens. Id.
Either way, only three patrons were in attendance, and nothing indicates Zeqiri charged them, or the
investigator, a cover, or that he advertised his establishment as broadcasting the Event in order to
attract a greater audience. Id.
Based on the damages awarded by other courts, the evidence currently before this Court—
(which reveals that only approximately three patrons were present at Zeqiri’s establishment—and

- 11 -

the need to deter future violations, the Court finds that an additional damages award of $1,000 is
reasonable. Thus, the Court GRANTS J&J’s request for additional damages and awards it $1,000.
3.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Under the FCA, the Court is required to order the recovery of full costs, including attorney’s
fees, to an aggrieved party who prevails. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Here, that is J&J, who seeks
a one-third contingent fee or, alternatively, $1,000 worth of attorney’s fees. Doc. 8, Pl.’s Mot. ¶ 19
n.7; Doc. 8-1, Ex. B, Affidavit of David M. Diaz (Diaz Aff.), ¶¶ 5-8, App. 29–32. To support its
request, it presents an affidavit from its counsel, David M. Diaz, who estimates his fee at $1,000,
based on approximately four hours of work a rate of $250 per hour. Id. at ¶ 8, App. 31–32. Given this
estimate, as well as the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Court finds J&J’s request for
$1,000 in attorney’s fees to be more reasonable than a one-third contingent fee.
The Fifth Circuit has described the procedure and standard for determining attorney’s fees
as follows:
The determination of a fees award is a two-step process. First the
court calculates the “lodestar” which is equal to the number of hours
reasonably expended multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the
community for similar work. The court should exclude all time that
is excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented. Once the
lodestar amount is calculated, the court can adjust it based on the
twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974).
Smith v. Acevedo, 478 F. App’x 116, 124 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jimenez v. Wood Cnty, 621 F.3d
372, 379–80 (5th Cir. 2010)). The Johnson factors are (1) time and labor required for the litigation;
(2) novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) skill requisite to perform the legal services
properly; (4) preclusion of other employment; (5) customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or
- 12 -

contingent; (7) limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) amount involved and the
result obtained; (9) experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) “undesirability” of the
case; (11) nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in
similar cases. 488 F.2d at 717–19.
Although J&J has not offered invoices or other evidence proving Diaz worked the number
of hours he claimed he did on this case, the Court accepts his estimate of his time and rates as
reasonable, given his experience with anti-piracy cases and the authorities he provides. Doc. 8-1, Ex.
B, Diaz Aff., App. 27–34; B-2; Doc. 8-1, Ex. B-1, David Diaz Resume, App. 36; id. at 37-39
(explanation of Martindale-Hubell Rating System); Doc. 8-1, Ex. B-2, Texas Lawyer’s Annual Salary
& Billing Report, App. 40–48. Accordingly, the Court makes no adjustment to these figures and
GRANTS J&J’s request for $1,000 in attorney’s fees.2
Though J&J is entitled to recover costs under the statute, as well, it has not requested a
specific amount, nor has it put forth any evidence on the issue. As a result, the Court is unable to
determine how much to award, or even how to go about calculating that figure. For that reason, it
DENIES J&J’s request for costs at this time, though J&J may provide supplementary briefing and
evidence establishing the amount of costs it seeks at a later time.
4.

Permanent Injunction

2

In its proposed order, J&J also includes several conditional grants of attorney’s fees for potential
post-judgment and appellate work. Doc. 8-2, Proposed Order 2. Although J&J does not expound upon this
request in its Motion, the affidavit of its counsel, David Diaz, lists various requests for fees that are contingent
upon the occurrence of post-judgment events. Pl.’s Ex. B, Diaz. Aff., App. 34. For example, J&J seeks a
conditional award of $10,000 to be granted should Zeqiri file a “post-judgment, pre-appeal motion,” such as
a motion to vacate. Id. Because this Court has granted reasonable attorney’s fees for the work actually
performed, and because J&J has presented no argument or evidence establishing the reasonableness of these
additional contingent fees, the Court denies this request.
- 13 -

Lastly, J&J requests a permanent injunction against Zeqiri to prevent him “from ever
intercepting or exhibiting an unauthorized program in violation of the [FCA].” Doc. 8, Pl.’s Mot. 10.
Under the FCA, a court may grant a final injunction “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to
prevent or restrain violations” of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(i). But J&J provides no support
for its request, and the Court finds an injunction is unnecessary to the extent it is merely intended
to prevent Zeqiri from violating the FCA. The Court therefore DENIES J&J’s request for a
permanent injunction.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
J&J’s Motion for Final Default Judgment (doc. 8). In particular, the Court:
!

GRANTS J&J’s request for statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 and for
additional damages in the amount of $1,000, for a total award of $6,000;

!

GRANTS J&J’s request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,000;

!

DENIES J&J’s request for costs of court, pending supplemental briefing;

!

GRANTS J&J’s request for post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.31% on all
amounts awarded herein; and

!

DENIES J&J’s request for a permanent injunction.

If J&J is able to provide supplementary briefing and evidence to support its request for court
costs, it is ORDERED to do so by October 19, 2015.

- 14 -

SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: October 7, 2015.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 15 -