Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00387/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0605 Communications Act of 1934

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint also sought relief under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which governs the

unauthorized interception of cable communications. In its motion for default judgment,

however, it requests recovery under 47 U.S.C. § 605 only. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mitchell John Weber, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00387-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants

Nicholas Lujan, Bill Bieze, and R.U.B., LLC (collectively, “defendants”) (doc. 23). 

Plaintiff was granted the exclusive commercial right to distribute the Ultimate

Fighting Championship 127: BJ Penn v. Jon Fitch telecast on February 26, 2011 via closedcircuit television (the “Program”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants willfully and unlawfully

intercepted and exhibited the Program at the Rub Sports Grill, a food and drink establishment

located in Mesa, Arizona, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (governing unlawful interception

of satellite signals).1

 Although served, defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond

to the complaint. Plaintiff now seeks default judgment in the amount of $111,100.00, plus

attorney’s fees and costs. 

Case 2:12-cv-00387-FJM Document 25 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff incorrectly asserts in its motion that the Program was broadcast to 100

people. Plaintiff’s investigator averred, however, that there were no more than 42 patrons

in the establishment. Investigator Affidavit at 2.

- 2 -

Section 605(a) of the Communications Act prohibits the unauthorized receipt and use

of radio communications, including satellite television signals, for one’s own benefit or the

benefit of another. DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008). Under § 605,

a plaintiff can recover either actual or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C).

Statutory damages are available “in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000" for

each violation “as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). To determine

an appropriate reward, the court balances the need to deter future illegal conduct against the

harm that will result to the defendants’ business if significant damages are assessed.

Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999). 

If a court “finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct

or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may exercise discretion and

increase the damages award by up to $100,000 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

“Courts use a variety of factors in determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to

enhanced damages for willfulness under § 605, including prior infringements, substantial

unlawful monetary gains, significant actual damages to the plaintiff, the defendant’s

advertising of the broadcast, and the defendant’s charging a cover charge or premiums for

food and drinks during the broadcast.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Guzman, 2008 WL

1924988, at *3 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2008). 

Rub Sports Grill is a relatively small commercial establishment with a maximum

capacity of 80 to 100 people. According to plaintiff’s investigator, the Program was

broadcast on 12 televisions to no more than 42 people.2

 Patrons were not charged a cover

fee. 

By defaulting, defendants admit that they intercepted and exhibited the Program to

their patrons without obtaining a license from plaintiff in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, and

did so “willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or

Case 2:12-cv-00387-FJM Document 25 Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

private financial gain.” Compl., ¶ 30 (doc. 1). We conclude that statutory damages under

§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of $2,000 is appropriate. Plaintiff’s request for enhanced

damages of $100,000, however, is “manifestly excessive.” See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.

v. Streshly, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1139 (S. D. Cal 2009) (stating that the court will “not

indulge Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain the biggest judgment it can by filing cookie-cutter

pleadings”). The evidence does not support a larger award. The license fee would have cost

defendants only $1,100. There is no evidence of repeated violations by defendants, no

evidence that defendants advertised the Program to draw additional crowds, and no evidence

that defendants charged either a cover fee or extra for food and drinks. The Program was

broadcast to no more than 42 patrons. Nevertheless, we are mindful of the deterrent effect

of an enhanced award under § 605, and we conclude based on the facts of this case that an

enhanced damages award of $2,000 is reasonable. 

Plaintiff also seeks damages for conversion. Under Arizona law, “the measure of

conversion damages includes not only the value of the property taken, but also other damage

suffered because of the wrongful detention or deprivation of the property.” Here, plaintiff

requests $1,100, the value of the license fee. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit, Ex. 1. We deny the

request because the award under § 605 adequately compensates plaintiff for the conversion

of its license. 

Finally, plaintiff’s general request for attorney’s fees is denied. Plaintiff must file a

motion for attorney’s fees in accordance with LRCiv 54.2. Plaintiff’s counsel should charge

only for hours actually expended on this case, taking into account the boilerplate pleadings

and motion-related forms used by this counsel in hundreds of other similar actions. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (doc. 23).

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount

of $4,000. 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00387-FJM Document 25 Filed 10/26/12 Page 3 of 3