Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02531/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02531-0/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

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Clifford Coen, Jr., individually and d/b/a

“Casa Fuma Cigars”; Pepco, LLC, an

unknown business entity d/b/a “Casa Fuma

Cigars,” 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2531-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 18). The

Court now rules on the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

As stated in the Complaint, Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. was granted the

exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to “Ultimate Fighting Championship 108:

Rashad Evans v. Thiago Silva,” telecast nationwide on Saturday, January 2, 2010 (hereinafter

the “Program”). Doc. 1 at ¶ 9. These rights included all under-card bouts and fight

commentary, in addition to the main event, encompassed in the television broadcast of the

Program. Id. Pursuant to contract, Plaintiff entered into sublicensing agreements with

various commercial establishments to permit the public exhibition of the Program. Id. at ¶

Case 2:11-cv-02531-JAT Document 19 Filed 07/17/12 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 -

10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Clifford Coen, Jr. and Pepco, LLC, both doing business

as “Casa Fuma Cigars,” unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the Program at its

establishment in Gilbert, Arizona. Id. at ¶ 12. 

According to an affidavit submitted by Plaintiff, Casa Fuma Cigars (“Casa Fuma”)

is a cigar bar or lounge with an estimated capacity of 20 to 25 people. Doc. 18-3 at 1. The

establishment sells cigars and permits patrons to smoke cigars inside. Id. There is no

indication that Casa Fuma sells food or beverages. On the night the Program aired, a

representative of Plaintiff visited Casa Fuma for approximately fifteen minutes. Id. He

noted that no cover was charged for entry. Id. He also observed that the Program was

displayed on five of the six television screens within the establishment. Id. Further, during

his visit, he counted a total of ten or eleven other patrons in Casa Fuma. Id. Prior to leaving

Casa Fuma, the representative also surreptitiously videotaped a portion of the Program

displayed on one of the televisions. Id.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this Court on December 21, 2011, alleging violations

of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (“FCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., and the Cable

& Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“Cable Act of 1992”), 47

U.S.C. § 553 et seq., as well as conversion under Arizona law. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 19 & 23.

Defendants have not answered the Complaint, and the Clerk entered default as to all

Defendants on February 21, 2012. Doc. 18. Plaintiff then filed the pending motion for

default judgment on May 14, 2012. Defendants have not moved to set aside the entry of

default or otherwise appeared. 

II. ANALYSIS

Once the Clerk of Court has entered default, the Court has discretion to grant default

judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). When the Court considers the entry of default judgment, the

well-pleaded “factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of

damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.

1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)).

Case 2:11-cv-02531-JAT Document 19 Filed 07/17/12 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

 In the Complaint, Plaintiffs also sought relief under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which applies

to cable signal transmissions. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d

347, 349 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). However, Plaintiff cannot determine the means of signal

transmission that Defendants used to unlawfully obtain the Program, and therefore only seeks

damages under § 605.

- 3 -

A. Violation of § 605

“[T]o be held liable for a violation of [47 U.S.C. § 605], a defendant must be shown

to have (1) intercepted or aided the interception of, and (2) divulged or published, or aided

the divulging or publishing of, a communication transmitted by the plaintiff.” Nat’l

Subscription Television v. S & H TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1981). Section 605 applies

to satellite television signals.1

 DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008).

The statute states that “the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for

each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than

$1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

The statute further provides that for any violation that “was committed willfully and for

purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its

discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of

not more than $100,000 for each violation.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

By defaulting, Defendants have admitted that they unlawfully intercepted and

published the Program to their patrons in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, and that they further

did so “willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private gain.”

Doc. 1 at ¶ 12. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court award statutory damages, including an

increase for a willful violation, in the maximum available amount of $110,000. Indeed, the

facts indicate that Defendants showed the Program on five screens in the establishment,

which is open to the public and located in an urban area. Though the establishment was not

filled to capacity, approximately 11 people were present at the time the Program was

displayed. Furthermore, Defendants willfully and unlawfully intercepted the Program and

displayed it to their patrons for commercial gain. The Court agrees that, based on these facts,

Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum award of $10,000 available under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

Case 2:11-cv-02531-JAT Document 19 Filed 07/17/12 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 -

With regard to enhanced damages, however, the Court does not agree that the

maximum enhancement is appropriate in this case. Defendants did not charge a cover for

entry, the establishment was not filled to even its rather small capacity, and there is no

evidence that Defendants have repeatedly violated this statute, that they advertised the

Program to draw larger crowds, that they charged a premium for cigars or other products, or

that their earnings were significantly larger than usual during the time that the Program was

displayed. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1185 (D.

Colo. 2008) (discussing these factors as reducing the size of an enhanced damages award).

However, Plaintiffs correctly note that enhanced damages are desirable in many cases

because of their tendency to deter future violations. Thus, based on the facts of this case, the

Court finds that an enhanced damages award of $10,000 is appropriate. The combined award

of $20,000 will serve to compensate Plaintiff for its lost revenue and also deter future

violations. 

B. Conversion

Plaintiff also requests an award of $900 for conversion. In Arizona, “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.” Collins v. First

Fin. Servs., Inc., 815 P.2d 411, 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). However, if actual damages are

not proven, only an award of nominal damages can be made. SWC Baseline & Crimson

Investors, LLC v. Augusta Ranch LP, 265 P.3d 1070, 1092 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). Here,

Plaintiff has not provided any factual support for the requested award. Therefore, the Court

will award nominal damages in the amount of $1 for the conversion claim.

C. Costs and Attorney Fees

Plaintiff also asks for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, though Plaintiff has not

provided the Court any basis on which to make such awards. Therefore, the Plaintiff may

separately file a bill of costs in accordance with LRCiv 54.1 and a motion for attorneys’ fees

in accordance with LRCiv 54.2. The Court will rule on a motion for attorneys’ fees if and

when one is filed.

Case 2:11-cv-02531-JAT Document 19 Filed 07/17/12 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 -

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 18).

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. and against Defendants Clifford

Coen, Jr., individually and d/b/a “Casa Fuma Cigars,” and Pepco, LLC, an unknown business

entity d/b/a “Casa Fuma Cigars,” in the total amount of $20,001. The Clerk shall enter

judgment.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02531-JAT Document 19 Filed 07/17/12 Page 5 of 5