Case ID: f-appx_491/html/0962-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. TAQUERIA JALISCO, INC., d.b.a. Taqueria Jalisco, Juan Carlos Lopez, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants, John Does 1-5, Defendants-Counter Defendants.
    No. 12-11604
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 16, 2012.
    Ronald D. Reemsnyder, Dawsonville, Ga, Edgar S. Mangiafico, Jr., Ragsdale, Beals, Seigler, Patterson & Gray, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee.
    Nicole Yolanda Jones, Jones Federal & Appellate, LLC, Douglasville, GA, for Defendants-Counter Defendants.
    Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is an action for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605. J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J & J”) sued Taquería Jalisco, Inc. (“Taquería”) and its manager, Juan Carlos Lopez, for unlawfully exhibiting a boxing program to which J & J owns the exclusive nationwide distribution rights. The material facts are not in dispute. See Order dated December 30, 2011 at 2. J & J had exclusive rights to the Oscar de la Hoya v, Manny Pacquiao-Welterweight Championship Fight Program which took place on December 6, 2008; Taquería displayed the program at its restaurant that day; Ta-quería and Lopez did not pay a commercial licensing fee to show the program (but Lopez paid the residential fee for the program); Taquería and Lopez received the program via satellite signal; and the program was shown on two screens to patrons at the restaurant. Since the material facts were not in dispute, the District Court ruled that J & J were entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 6. The court’s order directed J & J to submit proof of its damages and gave the defendants an opportunity to respond. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court, in an order dated February 24, 2012, awarded J & J $7,500 in statutory damages, see 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), $50,000 in enhanced statutory damages, and $13,255 in attorney’s fees. The court thereafter entered judgment for J & J against the defendants in the foregoing amounts, $70,755.

Taquería and Lopez appeal the court’s judgment, arguing that (1) they were entitled to a jury trial with respect to the statutory damages, Appellants’ Br. at 12; (2) because J & J failed to prove “actual damages” (J & J represented to the court that it could not quantify its actual loss), J & J could not “demonstrate an ‘injury in fact’ ”, as required by Article III of the Constitution, and therefore “lacked standing to pursue [its] claims”, id. at 13; (3) J & J failed to prove its entitlement to the enhanced statutory damages, id. at 18; and (4) the court “abused its discretion when it allowed [J & J] to amend the complaint to include a known party,” i.e., Lopez, id. at 20. For the reasons stated in the District Court’s orders of December 30, 2011, and February 24, 2012, these arguments lack merit. The District Court’s judgment is accordingly

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The court also granted J & J summary judgment on Taqueria’s counterclaim for state and federal RICO violations and fraud in an order dated February 29, 2012. This decision is not before us in this appeal.
     
      
      . J & J elected to receive statutory rather than actual damages. See Order, February 24, 2012. Section 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) authorizes damages for each violation of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000.
     
      
      .If the court finds that the violation was committed "willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may award enhanced damages not to exceed $100,000 for each violation. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).