Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albataineh et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 30 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant, Reda Albataineh (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
REDA ALBATAINEH, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

October 29, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0279

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(“Motion”) [Doc. # 30] filed by Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Joe Hand”). By
Order [Doc. # 34] entered October 2, 2015, the Court directed Defendant Reda
Albataineh to file any opposition to the Motion by October 26, 2015. Albataineh was
cautioned that failure to respond by the deadline could result in the entry of judgment
in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. Albataineh neither filed a response in
opposition to the Motion nor requested an extension of the response deadline.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the entry of summary
judgment against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing of the existence of
an element essential to the party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden
at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Curtis v. Anthony, 710 F.3d

P:\ORDERS\11-2015\0279MSJ.wpd

151029.1524

587, 594 (5th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings,
the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Curtis, 710
F.3d at 594.
Plaintiff has presented undisputed evidence that it is an aggrieved party under
the Federal Communications Act (“FCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 605, and has elected to seek
statutory damages. Plaintiff’s uncontroverted evidence establishes that Defendant
Albataineh exhibited the July 5, 2014 telecast (including undercard bouts and
commentary) of Ultimate Fighting Championship 175: Weidman v. Machida (the
“Program”) without authorization from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s uncontroverted evidence
establishes that Albataineh illegally intercepted and exhibited the Program at a
commercial establishment known as The Lounge Plaza.

Albataineh’s actions

constitute a willful violation of the FCA undertaken for purposes of financial gain.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has presented evidence that establishes that
Albataineh violated § 605 of the FCA. Notwithstanding this Court’s Order and
warning, Albataineh failed to present any evidence or argument in opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion. As a result, there being no genuine issue as to any material fact,
it is hereby

P:\ORDERS\11-2015\0279MSJ.wpd

151029.1524

2

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 30]
is GRANTED. The Court will issue a separate Final Judgment.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 29th day of October, 2015.

NAN Y F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNI
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P:\ORDERS\11-2015\0279MSJ.wpd

151029.1524

3