Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01884/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01884-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Alan Antar, et al., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-1884-PHX-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment, seeking judgment

against Defendant Antars Sports Bistro, LLC, an unknown business entity d/b/a Antars Sports

Bistro a/k/a Gym Bar and Grill (“Defendant”). (Doc. 17.) Having reviewed the record, the

Court finds that the application should be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) to the

extent that the Court will award Plaintiff the sum of $6,001 in damages, as well as its

recoverable costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if timely sought.

Background

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant showed a closed-circuit boxing telecast entitled

“Mexican Fiesta”: Morales v. Limond (“the program”) at its establishment on September 11,

2010. (Doc. 1.) The complaint alleges that the program was shown without authorization as

Defendant never purchased a commercial license to do so from the Plaintiff, which held the

exclusive commercial distribution rights to the program. (Id.) The complaint raises three

claims: a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (Count I);

a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, the Cable & Television Protection and Competition Act of

Case 2:12-cv-01884-PGR Document 18 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 4
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 -

1992 (Count II); and conversion (Count III). (Id.) 

The record establishes that Defendant was served on November 20, 2012. (See Doc.

10.) Defendants did not respond to the complaint, and Plaintiff filed an application for entry

of default on January 16, 2013. (Doc. 12.) The Clerk of the Court entered default on January

17, 2013. (Doc. 13.)

Discussion

 Plaintiff’s application for default judgment addresses only 47 U.S.C. § 605. The

general rule of law is that upon default all well pleaded factual allegations of the complaint

regarding liability, but not those relating to damages, are taken as true. DIRECTV, Inc. v.

Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2007); Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557,

560 (9th Cir. 1977). By defaulting, Defendant admits that it “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” in violation of § 605. (Doc. 1,

¶¶ 19, 20.)

Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to § 605, which provides for statutory damages per

violation “of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47

U.S.C. § 605(e)(C)(i)(II). Section 605 further permits an additional discretionary award of

enhanced damages of up to $100,000 if the court determines that the defendants willfully

violated the statute for commercial advantage or financial gain. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

Plaintiff seeks the maximum damages under both subsections, for a total award of $110,000,

plus $1750 in conversion damages. 

 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit by an investigator who was present at Defendant’s

establishment on the night of the broadcast. According to the affidavit, the restaurant had 29

televisions. (Doc. 17, Ex. 3.) The number of patrons present during the investigator’s visit

ranged from 63 to 72 . (Id.) The capacity of the establishment is “approximately 404 people.”

(Id.) There was no cover charge. (Id.) 

Case 2:12-cv-01884-PGR Document 18 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Based on this record, the Court concludes that the maximum statutory damages award

sought by Plaintiff is disproportionate, see, e.g., Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v.

Gonzalez, No. CV-12-0381-PGR, 2012 WL 3762436, at *2 (D.Ariz. Aug. 29, 2012); Joe

Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Streshly, 655 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1139 (S.D.Cal. 2009), but an amount

greater than the minimum is appropriate. Therefore, Court will award $2,000 in statutory

damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to enhanced damages for

willfulness, courts assess a variety of factors, “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, No. CV-07-

963-PHX-PGR, 2008 WL 1924988, at *3 (D.Ariz. April 30, 2008). The record does not

indicate that Defendant advertised the program or charged a premium for food and drink; nor

did Defendant did not impose a cover charge. However, the program was shown on multiple

screens, and the record indicates that Defendant is a repeat violator. (Doc. 17, Ex. 4.) In light

of this evidence, and taking into consideration the deterrent effect of an enhanced award under

§ 605, the Court will award $4,000 in enhanced damages pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). 

The complaint also alleges a claim for conversion, seeking damages of $1750. Plaintiff

offers no support for damages in that amount. Under Arizona law, only an award of nominal

damages for conversion may be made if actual damages are not proven. SWC Baseline &

Crimson Investors, LLC v. Augusta Ranch Limited P’ship, 265 P.3d 1070, 1092

(Ariz.App.2011). Given the absence of factual and legal support for the requested award, the

Court will award nominal damages of $1.00 for the conversion claim. See Innovative Sports

Management, 2012 WL 3762436, at *3; J&J Sports Production, Inc. v. Barrio Fiesta of

Manila Restaurant LLC, No. CV-11-2216-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 2919599, at *2 (D.Ariz. July

17, 2012).

Plaintiff also requests an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and relevant costs.

Case 2:12-cv-01884-PGR Document 18 Filed 03/12/13 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Section 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.” Plaintiff

does not set forth a requested amount, but seeks 14 days from entry of judgment to submit its

request for costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Court will require Plaintiff to submit an itemized list of attorney’s fees no later

than April 12, 2013, wherein it details the actual time expended by task (taking into account

any “boilerplate” pleading and motion related forms used by its attorney in this type of action)

and the hourly rate charged, and details its costs. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 17) is granted

against Defendant Antars Sports Bistro, LLC, an unknown business entity d/b/a Antars Sports

Bistro a/k/a Gym Bar and Grill, and in favor of Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,

in the amount of $6,001. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of

Time (Doc. 11).

DATED this 12th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01884-PGR Document 18 Filed 03/12/13 Page 4 of 4