Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02279/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02279-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Marina Carbajal-Armendariz, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-02279-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

26). Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the relevant record, the

Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that plaintiff

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. is entitled to entry of judgment in its favor as a matter

of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

Background

The complaint, filed on November 7, 2013, alleges that defendants Marina

Carbajal-Armendariz, aka Marina Carbajal, and Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC, both

doing business as Carbajal’s Mexican Food (“the Restaurant”), showed the pay-perview program Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez III WBO Welterweight

Championship Fight Program (“the Program”) on November 12, 2011, at the

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 9
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

- 2 -

Restaurant located in Mesa, Arizona, without having purchased a commercial

license to do so from the plaintiff, which held the exclusive nationwide commercial

distribution (closed-circuit) rights to the Program. The complaint alleges three

claims: violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Count I), violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553 (Count II),

and conversion (Count III).

Defendant Marina Carbajal-Armendariz, acting pro se, filed an answer on her

own behalf on March 6, 2014. Defendant Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC, through

Carbajal-Armendariz, filed a Notice of Appearance and Intent to Defend on March

6, 2014, wherein it stated that it would defend this action once it retained counsel;

however, to date, no counsel has filed a notice of appearance on its behalf and since

a limited liability company may appear in federal court only through a licensed

attorney, Carbajal-Armendariz cannot represent it. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481

F.3d 137, 140 (2nd Cir.2007) (noting that even a sole member or solely-owned

limited liability company may appear in federal court only through a licensed

attorney). The plaintiff has sought summary judgment against both defendants.

Discussion

Although the complaint alleges federal claims pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553 and

§ 605, the plaintiff’s request for judgment is directed solely at its § 605 claim; it does

not seek anything in its proposed judgment for its § 553 claim or its conversion

claim. Section 605(a) provides, in relevant part, that

[n]o person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio

communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents,

substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted

communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto

shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign

communication by radio and use such communication (or any

information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of

another not entitled thereto.

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 9
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

- 3 -

This statute includes the interception of satellite television signals. DirecTV v. Webb,

545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2008); J and J Sports Productions v. Coyne, 857

F.Supp.2d 909, 913 (N.D.Cal.2012) (47 U.S.C. § 605 “prohibits unauthorized receipt,

publication, or use of satellite cable programming.”) The complaint alleges in part

in Count I, the § 605 claim, that the defendants “did unlawfully intercept, receive,

publish, divulge, and/or exhibit the Program at the time of its transmission” at their

commercial establishment, and that they did so “willfully and for purposes of direct

and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.”

All of the relevant facts necessary to establish defendant Carbajal’s Mexican

Food, LLC’s liability under § 605 have been conclusively established as a result of

its failure to respond to the request for admissions directed at it, including that it

unlawfully intercepted the Program without the plaintiff’s authorization and that it did

so willfully and for financial gain. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3); Conlon v. United States,

474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2007) (“Unanswered requests for admissions may be

relied on as the basis for granting summary judgment.”) The plaintiff is therefore

entitled to an award of § 605 damages as to Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC.

The issue is somewhat different as to defendant Carbajal-Armendariz. She

failed to respond to the request for admissions directed at her at the time they were

due and the plaintiff relied on her deemed admissions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

36(a)(3) in its summary judgment motion. However, Carbajal-Armendariz thereafter

responded to the request for admissions concomitantly with her response to the

summary judgment motion and seeks to have her responses to the request for

admissions made timely through her Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to

Respond to Requests for Admission Nunc Pro Tunc. Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s

opposition to her motion, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 9
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

- 4 -

given Carbajal-Armendariz’s pro se status and because the plaintiff has made no

showing that it will be prejudiced by permitting Carbajal-Armendariz to substitute her

filed responses for her deemed admissions. As the plaintiff concedes, “as evidenced

by Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment itself, summary judgment is appropriate

irrespective of the requests for admissions.” See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623-24 (“When

undertaking a prejudice inquiry under Rule 36(b), district courts should focus on the

prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial. ... We agree with the other

courts that have addressed the issue and conclude that reliance on a deemed

admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not constitute prejudice.”)

Based on Carbajal-Armendariz’s responses to the request for admissions and

her concessions in her summary judgment response and related documents, the

Court concludes that there is no dispute as to the following relevant facts: that the

Program was shown at the Restaurant on November 12, 2011 and was viewed by

its patrons, that Carbajal-Armendariz ordered the Program for the Restaurant

through her satellite television company DirecTV, that she did not pay a licensing fee

directly to the plaintiff for the Program, that she is the owner and manager of the

Restaurant and an officer of the entity owning the Restaurant, that she was in the

Restaurant on the night the Program was shown, and that the Program was

broadcast in the Restaurant while food and beverages were being sold to its patrons.

While Carbajal-Armendariz argues that she is not liable for violating § 605

because she purchased the right to broadcast the program from DirecTV, which she

contends is the plaintiff’s agent or licensee, and that if DirecTV had no right to sell

the Program to her or if it charged her the wrong amount for the Program, that is the

plaintiff’s problem and not hers. The Court agrees with the plaintiff that this

argument is not a cognizable defense to § 605 liability since that statute is in effect

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 9
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

- 5 -

a strict liability statute. See DirecTV v. Crespin, 224 Fed.Appx. 741, 757 (10th Cir.

2007) (noting that “§ 605(a) does not have an intent requirement.”); J & J Sports

Productions, Inc. v. Greathouse, 2015 WL 717907, at *2 (D.Ariz. Feb. 19, 2015)

(“Violation of section 605 is a strict liability offense.”); Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd.

v. Williams, 1 F.Supp.2d 1481, 1484 (S.D.Ga. 1998) (“William also states that she

did not know she was doing anything illegal. The Cable Act [47 U.S.C. § 605],

however, does not require a knowing violation. .. . Thus, Williams’s knowledge

concerns her damages and not her liability.”); see also, Doherty v. Wireless

Broadcasting Systems of Sacramento, Inc., 151 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.1998)

(noting that the “remedial provisions” of § 605 “take into consideration the degree of

the violator’s culpability and provide for reduce damages in those instances where

the violator was unaware of the violation.”) Based on its review of the evidence,

viewed in the light most favorable to Carbajal-Armendariz, the Court concludes that

the plaintiff is entitled to an award of § 605 damages from Carbajal-Armendariz.

Section 605 provides for statutory damages per violation “of not less than

$1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

Section 605 also permits an additional award of enhanced damages of up to

$100,000 if “the court in its discretion” determines that the defendant willfully violated

the statute “for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or financial

gain.” § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). However, § 605 further provides that “[i]n any case where

the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his

acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the

award of damages to a sum of not less than $250.” § 605(e)(3)(C)((iii). The plaintiff,

without differentiating between the two defendants, seeks an award of $ 6,600 in

statutory damages and $ 23,100 in enhanced statutory damages, for a total statutory

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 9
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

- 6 -

damages award of $ 29,700.

The plaintiff’s investigator, Florenco Mendez, states the following facts in his

“fill in the blanks” form affidavit that are relevant to the issue of § 605 damages: that

he visited the Restaurant for 30 minutes on the evening of November 12, 2011; that

he did not pay a cover charge; that he ordered two drinks from a waitress; that the

restaurant had four flat screen televisions, approximately 40" in size; that the

televisions were showing the Pacquiao v. Marquez boxing event, and that he

watched the first five rounds of the Luis Cruz v. Juan Carlos Burgos bout; and that

the restaurant had the capacity of approximately 75 people, and that at the three

times he counted the number of patrons there were, 55, 53, and 60 people. The

investigator also provided some photographs showing that there was a satellite dish

located somewhere on the roof of the strip mall in which the Restaurant is located.

The plaintiff has also provided evidence through the affidavit of Joseph Gagliardi, the

plaintiff’s president, that the plaintiff never sold the defendants a sublicense to show

the Program at the Restaurant and that no other entity was authorized to transmit

the Program to the defendants, and that the Cruz v. Burgos fight seen by the

plaintiff’s investigator was an undercard bout that was part of the Program. The

plaintiff has further provided evidence that the commercial licensing fee for the

Program for an establishment with seating up to 100 people was $2,200. CarbajalArmendariz has submitted a copy of her DirecTV bill which confirms that she paid

the residential rate of $54.95 for the Program.

Carbajal-Armendariz argues that the plaintiff is entitled to only minimal

damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)((iii) because she thought she was fully

authorized to show the Program at the Restaurant inasmuch as she had a satellite

television contract at the restaurant with DirecTV, she had purchased the Program

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 9
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

- 7 -

from DirecTV to show at the Restaurant after being solicited by DirecTV to do so,

and she knew nothing about DirecTV’s pricing or authority regarding her access to

the Program and did not realize that the Restaurant had been billed the wrong fee

and that she had to pay a larger fee to the plaintiff to show the Program. The plaintiff

argues Carbajal-Armendariz is not entitled to a reduction in damages because she

objectively had reason to know that her showing of the Program was not authorized

inasmuch as DirecTV’s commercial viewing agreement in effect at the time the

Program was broadcast warned its customers that not all programming transmitted

by DirecTV was available to commercial customers and that customers could be

subject to legal action for circumventing broadcast restrictions.

As the plaintiff acknowledges, the Court has considerable discretion in

awarding damages. Based on the evidence presented, the Court, taking into

account the provision of § 605(e)(3)(C)(iii) as it relates to Carbajal-Armendariz,

concludes that statutory damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of

$ 1,100 is a just award as against both defendants. 

While the plaintiff, without differentiating between the defendants, requests

that the Court also award it significant enhanced damages to deter the piracy of its

closed-circuit telecasts, the Court declines to award any enhanced damages under

the facts of this case against Carbajal-Armendariz. While the Court concludes that

the plaintiff is entitled to a discretionary award of some enhanced damages as to

Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC in light of its deemed admissions (to the extent that

they were not contradicted by other evidence of record), the Court notes that there

is little evidence in the record of any significant “commercial advantage or private

financial gain” or of egregious misconduct by this defendant warranting anything

more that fairly minimal enhanced damages. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v.

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 -

Guzman, 2008 WL 1924988, at *3 (D.Ariz. April 30, 2008) (“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.”) In light of the evidence, the

Court will award $ 2,500 in enhanced damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) against

Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC.

The plaintiff also requests in its complaint and in its summary judgment motion

that it be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees and relevant costs pursuant to §

605. The plaintiff is awarded its costs and fees because § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) provides

that the Court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable

attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” The plaintiff is directed to comply

with LRCiv 54.1 and LRCiv 54.2 in applying for its costs and fees. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Marina Carbajal-Armendariz’s Motion for

Extension of Time Within Which to Respond to Requests for Admission Nunc Pro

Tunc (Doc. 29) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 26) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to the extent that the plaintiff,

pursuant to Count I of its Complaint, is awarded the total sum of $1,100.00 from

defendants Marina Carbajal-Armendariz and Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC pursuant

to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), as well as the additional sum of $2,500.00 from

defendant Carbajal’s Mexican Food, LLC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file its request for attorney’s

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

fees and costs in compliance with this Court’s Local Rules.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2015.

Case 2:13-cv-02279-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/01/15 Page 9 of 9