J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Sandoval
ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (aej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
as Broadcast Licensee of the December 8, 2012
Pacquiao v. Marquex IV Fight Program,
DAVID R. SANDOVAL a/k/a DAVID
RODRIGUEZ SANDOVAL a/k/a DAVID
SANDOVAL, individually, and d/b/a
MCMULLEN BAR a/k/a MC MULLEN
Civil Action No. 5:15-CV-1079-XR
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment and Brief in Support
(docket no. 8). After careful consideration of the motion, record, and applicable law, the
Court will GRANT the motion.
Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J&J”) was granted exclusive contractual rights
to broadcast the closed-circuit telecast of the December 8, 2012, Pacquiao v. Marquez IV
Fight Program (the “Broadcast”). 1 Docket no. 8, Exhibit A–1. J&J subsequently entered into
agreements with various entities in Texas allowing them to publicly display the Broadcast for
a fee. Docket no. 1 at 3; see Docket no. 8, Exhibit A–1 (permitting J&J to sublicense the
In the original complaint, J&J states that the Pacquiao v. Marquez IV Fight Program included another fight
between Yuriorkis Gamboa and Michael Farenas. (Docket No. 1, n. 1). According to the affidavit of J&J’s
investigator, it was the fight between Gamoba and Farenas that the investigator observed. (Docket No. 8, Exhibit
A–2). J&J’s license included selected undercard bouts, such as the Gamboa and Farenas fight, for the Broadcast.
(Docket No. 8, Exhibit A–1).
Broadcast). Defendant David Rodriguez Sandoval doing business as McMullen Bar, also
known as Mc Mullen Bar (“Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar”), is alleged to have displayed the
fight without obtaining a licensing contract from J&J. Docket no. 1 at 2–3.
On December 7, 2015, J&J filed its Original Complaint in this Court. Docket no. 1.
The complaint alleges that Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar knowingly and willfully violated the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 by unlawfully receiving and exhibiting the
Broadcast via satellite. Docket no. 1 at 3; 47 U.S.C. § 605 (2012). J&J seeks $60,000 in
statutory damages for the willful violation of the Act. Docket no. 8 at 10. J&J also requests a
permanent injunction enjoining Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar from future violations of the
Act, full costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Docket no. 1 at 4. After Sandoval d/b/a
McMullen Bar failed to respond to the Complaint, J&J filed both a Motion for Entry of
Default and a Motion for Default Judgment on March 23, 2016. 2 Docket nos. 7, 8. The Clerk
entered default on March 24, 2016. Docket no. 9.
Pursuant to Rule 55(a), a default judgment is proper “[w]hen a party against whom a
judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a). A defendant’s failure to respond is considered an admission of “plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations of fact” that relate to liability, but not damages. Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302
F.3d 515, 524–25 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l
Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). A default judgment “must not differ in kind
When a party moves for default judgment, “the district court has an affirmative duty to” determine jurisdiction
over both “the subject matter and the parties.” System Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d
322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Williams v. Life Savings and Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986)). The
Court has reviewed the return of service and the pleadings, and concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over
Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, which is based on a violation of a
from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed R. Civ. P. 54(c). A
hearing to determine the amount of damages is unnecessary when that amount can be
determined “with certainty by reference to the pleadings and supporting documents.” James v.
Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Frame v. S-H, Inc., 967 F.2d 194, 204 (5th
The Communications Act of 1934, specifically the portion codified at 47 U.S.C. § 605,
prohibits the unauthorized publication of certain types of communication. 47 U.S.C. § 605.
The Fifth Circuit has clarified the scope of § 605, holding that it applies to satellite
communication. See J&J Sports Prods. v. Mandell Family Ventures, LLC, 751 F.3d 346, 352–
53 (5th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing between proper claims under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and § 553).
There are three relevant damages provisions in 47 U.S.C. § 605. First, as a baseline,
the statute allows for damages between $1,000 and $10,000 for violations of the
Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i). The second provision gives the court the
discretion to award additional damages “by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each
violation” if the court finds “that the violation was committed willfully and for the purpose of
direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(C)(ii). The final provision provides that the court “shall direct the recovery of full
costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 47 U.S.C. §
I. Default Judgment
By defaulting, Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar effectively admits J&J’s allegations of
fact and the Court accepts all factual allegations relating to liability as true. Jackson, 302 F.3d
at 525. Based on the allegations by J&J and the subsequent default by Sandoval d/b/a
McMullen Bar, the Court finds that: (1) J&J held exclusive rights to distribute the Broadcast to
commercial entities; (2) J&J contracted with various commercial entities in Texas to exhibit
the Broadcast for a fee; (3) Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar presented the Broadcast at a
commercial location via satellite absent an agreement with J&J or other authority to do so; (4)
this unauthorized presentation of the satellite Broadcast by Sandoval violated 47 U.S.C. § 605;
and (4) Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar exhibited the Broadcast for the purpose of securing
broadcasting . . . and the low probability that a commercial establishment could intercept such
a broadcast merely by chance, however, courts have held [such] conduct . . . to be willful and
for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Entm’t
by J&J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769, 776 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Therefore,
this Court concludes Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar violated the Communications Act with the
intent to achieve private financial gain.
The remaining issue is the amount of damages to which J&J is entitled. The statute
provides that an aggrieved party may recover an award between $1,000 and $10,000. 47
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Under J&J’s billing model, the licensing fee for a broadcast is
based on the capacity of the establishment and varies for each event. Docket no. 8, Exhibit A–
3. Here, the establishment in question had a capacity of approximately 75 people. 3 To
purchase viewing rights and legally broadcast the fight for this number of people, Sandoval
would have been required to pay $2,200.00. Docket no. 8, Exhibit A–3. When calculating the
amount of statutory damages, “[t]he Court finds it reasonable to treble what would have been
the cost had Defendant followed the law.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garcia, 546 F. Supp.
2d 383, 386 (W.D. Tex. 2008). This figure includes monetary savings resulting from the
violation of the Communications Act, “as well as any profits made from food and drink sales
associated with customers who stayed and watched the fight.” Id. Therefore, because the
amount Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar would have paid had he legally purchased the rights to
the Broadcast was $2,200.00, the total statutory damages under this provision could be as high
The statute caps damages under this section at $10,000.
47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(C)(i). Accordingly, J&J is awarded $6,600.00 under this section.
Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) allows for enhanced damages when the statute is violated
“willfully for the purposes of direct and indirect commercial advantage or private gain.” 47
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
A defendant’s default is an admission that the violation was
committed willfully for the purpose of monetary gain. Entm’t by J&J, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d at
776. The Court must balance the need to punish illegal piracy with the need to keep damages
at a level that will not cause an insurmountable financial burden. See id. at 775–76 (reviewing
multiple calculation methods and factors courts consider when assessing statutory damages
under § 605). Given the largest amount of patrons observed viewing the illegal broadcast at
the establishment was 75, the Court finds that J&J is entitled to $2,200 in enhanced damages
Approximate capacity is based on an estimate by J&J’s investigator. During the Broadcast, the investigator
observed a total of 50, 60, and 75 people at the establishment at various times. Docket no. 8, Exhibit A–2.
under this section, which is the price Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar would have been required
to pay to legally broadcast the fight to 75 people.
The statute allows an aggrieved party who prevails to recover full costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). J&J seeks to recover attorney’s fees in the
amount of one-third of recovery, or alternatively, based on the hourly time for prosecution of
this case. Docket no. 8, Exhibit B. J&J also seeks to recover attorney’s fees for post-trial and
appellate services. Docket No. 8. J&J submitted the affidavit of David Diaz to establish the
reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Docket no. 8, Exhibit B. Based upon the affidavit
and the time spent preparing this case, the Court awards reasonable attorney’s fees in the
amount of $1,000. The Court declines to award attorney’s fees and costs for future appeals.
J&J’s Motion for Default Judgment against Sandoval d/b/a McMullen Bar is
GRANTED. The Court awards J&J $9,800.00 ($8,800.00 in total damages and $1,000.00 in
attorney’s fees). A separate judgment in favor of J&J shall issue in accordance with Rule 58.
J&J is awarded costs and shall file a bill of costs in the form required by the Clerk of the
Court, and with supporting documentation, within fourteen days of the entry of the Judgment.
See Local Rule 54.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?