Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00722/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00722-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Zlatko Redzic, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 13-00722-PHX-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 31.) Defendants

filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 34.) The motion is granted for the reasons set forth

herein. 

DISCUSSION

On April 10, 2013, Plaintiff, a distributor of sports programs, filed a complaint

alleging violations of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and the Cable &

Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, 47 U.S. § 553, as well as a claim for

conversion (Doc. 1.) The complaint alleges that Defendants, owners of George’s Famous

Gyros, unlawfully intercepted and displayed the closed circuit telecast of a soccer game,

Honduras v. Costa Rica World Cup Qualifier Game (the “Program”), on April 11, 2012, for

which Plaintiff had exclusive distribution rights. (Id.)

Defendants did not appear or otherwise respond to the complaint. On June 13, 2013,

Plaintiff applied for entry of default, and default was entered on June 14, 2013. (Docs. 13,

14.) On June 26, 2013, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint, which Plaintiff moved

Case 2:13-cv-00722-PGR Document 38 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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 -

to strike. (Docs. 15, 16.) On September 3, 2013, the court denied the motion and set aside

entry of default. (Doc. 22.)

Subsequently counsel for Defendants moved to withdraw (Doc. 27), and the Court

granted the motion on January 21, 2014. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff filed the pending motion on

March 14, 2014, seeking summary judgment on its claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605. (Doc. 31.)

1. Summary Judgement Standard

Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary

judgment must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an

essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving

party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). Once the movant has made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party

opposing summary judgment to identify “specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for

trial.” Id. The party opposing summary judgment must then present affirmative evidence

from which a jury could return a verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477

U.S. 242, 257 (1986). 

2. Analysis

The Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., prohibits commercial

establishments from intercepting and broadcasting to its patrons satellite cable programming.

See DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that § 605 prohibits

“unauthorized reception or interception of television programming.”). Liability under § 605

requires proof that defendant has “(1) intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2)

divulged or published, or aided the divulging or publishing of, a communication by the

plaintiff.” Cal. Satellite Sys. v. Seimon, 767 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff has presented evidence, through affidavits of its President, Doug Jacobs

(Doc. 33), and the investigator who observed the broadcast (Doc. 31-3), that Plaintiff was

Case 2:13-cv-00722-PGR Document 38 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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

 While the Ninth Circuit upholds a “policy of liberal construction in favor of pro se

litigants,” Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.1998), the court is also clear that a

pro se litigant must “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates,”Bias v. Moynihan,

508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).

2

 On May 2, 2014, Defendants filed a motion seeking an extension of time to “reply”

to the summary judgement motion and to answer the requests for admission. (Doc. 37.)

Defendants having already filed a response to the summary judgment motion, the Court will

deny this request as untimely.

- 3 -

granted the exclusive commercial distribution rights to the Program and that Defendants

intercepted and exhibited the Program at their restaurant without paying a commercial

licensing fee to Plaintiff or gaining permission from Plaintiff to broadcast the Program. (Doc.

32, ¶¶ 2, 6–8; see Doc. 33, ¶ 3.) Moreover, based on Defendants’ failure to respond to

Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, these matters are deemed admitted and conclusively

established. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) and (b). 

Defendants filed a pro se response to the motion for summary judgment, in which they

acknowledge showing the Program but state that it “was available on the internet” and no

authorization was necessary to access it; they also assert that it was Plaintiff’s investigator

who asked them to turn the Program on. (Doc. 34.) These statements are insufficient under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), which requires an assertion to be supported by citation to

materials in the record, and LRCiv. 56.1(b), which requires a party opposing a motion for

summary judgment to file a separate controverting statement of facts.1

Rule 56(e)(3) provides that when a party “fails to properly address another party's

assertion of fact,” a court may “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting

materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to

it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).2

 “In the absence of specific facts, as opposed to allegations,

showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial, a properly supported summary judgment

motion will be granted.” Nilsson, Robbins, et al. v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545

(9th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:13-cv-00722-PGR Document 38 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

In light of the facts cited by Plaintiff, Defendants’ admissions, and Defendants’ failure

to offer controverting facts, the Court will grant summary judgment on Plaintiff claim

alleging a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605.

3. Damages

Plaintiff seeks damages under § 605, which provides for statutory damages of not less

than $1000 and not more than $10,000, and enhanced damages of up to $100,000 where the

violation was willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private gain. 47 U.S.C.

§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) and (ii). In determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to

enhanced damages, courts assess factors such as 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. G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Soofi, No. 12-CV-1282-PHXPGR, 2013 WL 173789, at *2 (D.Ariz. January 16, 2013).

According to affidavit submitted by Plaintiff’s investigator, the Program was shown

on a 42" television. (Doc. 31-3.) The sound was not on, and “ethnic music” was playing in

the background. Id. The establishment had a capacity of about 30 people. Id. There were

between two and four patrons present during the hour the investigator spent at the

establishment. Id. She paid no cover charge, and purchased a burger and drink for six dollars.

Id. The affidavit does not indicate whether any of the patrons were actually viewing the

Program.

Given these circumstances the Court will award the statutory minimum and deny

enhanced damages. There is no evidence that Defendants showed the Program for

commercial advantage or private gain. 

Plaintiff also seeks conversion damages in amount of $750, which is the commercial

fee for the right to broadcast the Program. (Doc. 31-1 at 17.) The Court will award this

amount. See J & J Sports Productions Inc. v. Vargas, No. 11-CV-2229-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL

1249206, at *4 (D.Ariz. March 27, 2013).

Case 2:13-cv-00722-PGR Document 38 Filed 05/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is

granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against

Defendants in the amount of $1,750. Plaintiff may move for attorney’s fees as provided in

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ motion for an extension

(Doc. 37).

DATED this 6th day of May, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00722-PGR Document 38 Filed 05/06/14 Page 5 of 5