Innovative Sports Management Inc v. Solis-Martinez
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Before the court is Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Default Judgment, filed 8/9/2017 (Doc. 9 ). After careful consideration of the motion, brief, record, and applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/21/2018) (ran)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
INNOVATIVE SPORTS
MANAGEMENT, INC., as Broadcast
Licensee of the June 2, 2013 Honduras
v. Israel Soccer Game,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN E. SOLIS-MARTINEZ
individually and d/b/a Mi Cocina
Hondurena a/k/a Mi Cocina Hondurena
Restaurant a/k/a Mi Comida Hondurena
Restaurant a/k/a Mi Comida Hundureno
Restaurant,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1474-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, filed August 9, 2017 (Doc. 9).
After careful consideration of the motion, brief, record, and applicable law, the court grants
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.
I.
Factual Background
On June 1, 2016, Innovative Sports Management, Inc. (“Innovative Sports” or “Plaintiff”)
filed Plaintiff’s Original Complaint against Martin E. Solis-Martinez, individually, and d/b/a Mi
Cocina Hondurena (“Solis-Martinez” or “Defendant”) (Doc. 1). Innovative Sports sues SolisMartinez in this action for violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and
605 (the “Act”). Innovative Sports is the license company exclusively authorized to sublicense
the closed-circuit telecast of the June 2, 2013 Honduras v. Israel soccer game (“Event”) at closedcircuit locations such as theaters, arenas, bars, clubs, lounges, restaurants and the like throughout
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
Texas. Pl.’s Orig. Compl. 1. Innovative Sports contends that on June 2, 2013, Solis-Martinez
illegally intercepted the closed-circuit telecast of the Event without its permission at Mi Cocina
Hondurena Restaurant and did not pay the required licensing fee. Id. at 2.
Solis-Martinez was properly served on September 21, 2016 (Doc. 6), and to date has not
filed an answer to the complaint or otherwise defended this lawsuit. Innovative Sports requested
the clerk to issue entry of default on August 9, 2017, and default was entered by the clerk on
August 10, 2017 (Doc. 10). Innovative Sports now requests entry of default judgment against
Solis-Martinez for statutory and additional damages and a permanent injunction. Plaintiff further
requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Innovative Sports was the exclusive licensee through a licensing agreement, and SolisMartinez did not have authorization from Innovative Sports to show the Event at his establishment.
Innovative Sports possessed the proprietary right to exhibit and sublicense the Event through a
licensing agreement with the promoter of the Event. As such, Innovative Sports 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 Innovative Sports. No agreement between Innovative Sports and Solis-Martinez
existed that would have allowed Solis-Martinez to broadcast the Event to patrons at SolisMartinez’s establishment. On June 2, 2013, Defendant intercepted, or assisted in the interception
of, the transmission of the Event and broadcast or aired it for viewing by the patrons of SolisMartinez’s establishment. Innovative Sports’ auditor observed the Event being telecast on two
televisions to approximately 40 patrons at Solis-Martinez’s establishment.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
II.
Discussion
A party is entitled to entry of a default by the clerk of the court if the opposing party fails
to plead or otherwise defend as required by law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Under Rule 55(a), a default
must be entered before the court may enter a default judgment. Id.; New York Life Ins. Co. v.
Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). The clerk of the court has entered a default against SolisMartinez.
Solis-Martinez, by failing to answer or otherwise respond to Innovative Sports’ Original
Complaint, has admitted the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint and is precluded from
contesting the established facts on appeal. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515
F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). Based on the well-pleaded allegations of
Innovative Sports’ Original Complaint, which the court accepts as true, and the record in this
action, the court determines that Solis-Martinez is in default.
Further, based upon the record, evidence, and applicable law, the court concludes that
Solis-Martinez violated 17 U.S.C. § 605, * that Innovative Sports is an aggrieved party under the
statute, and that it is entitled to statutory damages and reasonable attorney’s fees for Solis-Martinez
statutory violation. Accordingly, the court determines that Solis-Martinez is liable to Innovative
Sports in the amount of $10,000 in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
Further, because the record reflects that Solis-Martinez’s actions were willful and for the purpose
of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court determines that Solis-
*
Solis-Martinez’s transmission of the event occurred via satellite radio; therefore, the court
determines that his conduct is in violation of § 605. See J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Mandell Family
Ventures, L.L.C., 751 F.3d 346, 352-354 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 605(a) governs the interception of
radio transmissions but not cable, and § 553(a) governs the interception of cable transmissions but not
radio).
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
Martinez is liable to Innovative Sports in the amount of $50,000 in damages for willful acts under
47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). Moreover, the court determines that such damages are necessary to
deter Solis-Martinez and other commercial establishments and entities from pirating or stealing
protected communications.
The court also concludes that Innovative Sports is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees;
however, the court disagrees that reasonable attorney’s fees should be based on 33 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, Mr. David M. Diaz, 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 has awarded this hourly rate in prior cases handled by Mr.
Diaz. Accordingly, the court awards Innovative Sports $1,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees in this
case. The court declines to award attorney’s fees for postjudgment work, including appellate
matters, as the amount of such fees is speculative and unknown. If additional hours are expended
postjudgment, Innovative Sports will have an opportunity to seek such fees.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. As
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the court will issue a final default judgment against
Solis-Martinez and in favor of Innovative Sports in the total amount of $61,000, which consists of
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4
$10,000 as statutory damages; $50,000 additional statutory damages; and $1,000 as reasonable
attorney’s fees. Postjudgment interest will accrue on the judgment at the applicable federal rate of
1.97% from the date of its entry until it is paid in full.
It is so ordered this 21st day of February, 2018.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5
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?