Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04021/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04021-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Communications Act of 1994

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUIS GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04021-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 16

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is an international distributor of sports 

and entertainment programming and secured the domestic commercial exhibition rights to 

broadcast and sublicense one particular program, namely “Mayhem: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. 

Marcos Rene Maidana, II WBC World Lightweight Championship Fight Program” (the “Event”), 

which was telecast nationwide on September 13, 2014. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Luis Gonzalez Rodriguez illegally intercepted and broadcasted the Event at his 

restaurant, Los Jarritos.

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and personal jurisdiction arises 

from service on Defendant in California. Burnham v. Super. Ct., 495 U.S. 604, 610-11 (1990). 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 2, 2015. Defendant failed to answer and his default 

was entered by the Clerk on February 1, 2016. Dkt. No. 15. 

Plaintiff’s now applies for entry of default judgment. Dkt. No. 16. The court finds this 

matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for May 19, 2016, will be vacated. Plaintiff’s application will 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be granted for the reasons explained below.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is in the business of marketing and licensing commercial exhibitions of pay-perview prizefight events. Aff. of Joseph M. Gagliardi (“Gagliardi Aff.”), Dkt. No. 16, at ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff was licensed to exhibit the Event at closed circuit locations located in commercial 

establishments. Id. at ¶ 5. In order for commercial establishments to broadcast the Event, owners 

were required to enter into a sublicense agreement with Plaintiff and pay a fee calculated using the 

capacity of the establishment. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8. The sublicense provided commercial establishments 

the ability to publicly exhibit the Event. Id. at ¶ 7.

On September 13, 2014, investigator Jeff Kaplan viewed a broadcast of the Event at Los 

Jarritos in San Jose, California. Aff. of Jeff Kaplan (“Kaplan Aff.”), Dkt. No. 16. Based on 

Kaplan’s observations, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant displayed the Event without obtaining the 

proper sublicense. Gagliardi Aff., at ¶ 9.

While he was at Los Jarritos, Kaplan observed one large screen in the back of the room

displaying prefight interviews, highlights from the first fight between the main event boxers, and 

the start of the undercard fight. Plaintiff owned the rights to distribute those preliminary events. 

Gagliardi Decl., at ¶ 3. The establishment’s capacity was approximately 75 persons. Three 

separate headcounts - all of which apparently occurred in one minute or less at 6:04 p.m.1- yielded

10 persons each time. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the court may enter default judgment 

against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend an action. “The district court’s 

decision whether to enter default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

The Ninth Circuit has provided seven factors for consideration by the district court to 

 

1

In his affidavit, Kaplan states he both entered and left Los Jarritos at 6:04 p.m. on September 13, 

2014. 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determine whether to enter a default judgment, known commonly as the Eitel factors. They are: 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) 

the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of 

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect and; (7) the 

strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). When assessing these factors, all wellpled factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true, except those with regard to damages. 

Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The Eitel Factors

This court has previously found the Eitel factors weigh in favor of default judgment under 

nearly identical circumstances. The result is the same in this case.

As to the first factor, denying Plaintiff’s application for default judgment would make little 

sense since Defendant has refused to respond to this action. The court would hear and review the 

same evidence it has before it now if Plaintiff was required to prove up its case at an uncontested 

trial. For that reason, Plaintiff would be prejudiced in the form of further delay and expense if the 

court were to deny the present application. This factor weighs in favor of default judgment.

As to the second and third factors, Plaintiff’s substantive claims appear meritorious and the 

Complaint is sufficiently pled. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant violated two sections of Title 

47 and the alleged activities of Defendants appear to have violated at least one of those sections. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has stated relevant laws pursuant to which the court may provide relief. 

These factors also weigh in favor of default judgment.

As to the fourth factor, the sum of money at stake has yet to be determined but the 

damages cannot exceed the amounts specified in 47 U.S.C. § 553 (for reasons more fully 

explained below), and the maximum amount allowable for the tort of conversion. Accordingly, 

statutory damages cannot exceed $10,000 and enhanced damages may not exceed $50,000. See

47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii), (B). Plaintiff is seeking $2,000 in damages for conversion, or the 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amount Defendant would have been required to pay for the license. All things considered, the 

relatively small sum of damages weighs in favor of default judgment.

As to the fifth factor, there is no dispute of material fact. Indications that there is a dispute 

of material fact can weigh against entry of default judgment. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. But 

here, Defendant has not disputed any of Plaintiff’s contentions since Defendant failed to respond 

to either the Complaint or this motion, and the material facts pled in the Complaint are supported 

or explained by affidavit or declaration.

For the sixth factor, it is unlikely that default was the result of excusable neglect. This 

action was filed approximately 8 months ago and the docket reveals that Defendant was properly 

noticed of this action through substitute service at the establishment. In addition, Defendant was

served with a copy of the instant motion. Defendant failed to respond despite these notifications. 

This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of default judgment.

Finally, the seventh factor weighs in favor of default judgment because “although federal 

policy favors decisions on the merits, Rule 55(b)(2) permits entry of default judgment in situations 

such as this where defendants refuse to litigate.” J & J Sports Prods, Inc. v. Concepcion, No. 10-

CV-05092, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60607, at *5, 2011 WL 2220101 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2011). 

Thus, the general policy in favor of merits decisions is outweighed by the specific considerations 

made in this case. As such, this factor does not prevent entry of default judgment here.

B. Calculation of Damages

i. Statutory Violation

Plaintiff requests $10,000 in statutory damages as a result of an alleged violation of 47 

U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), which prohibits any person from receiving or transmitting “wire or 

radio” signals except through authorized channels. 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). More specifically, the 

statute “‘prohibits commercial establishments from intercepting and broadcasting to its patrons 

satellite cable programming.’” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ro, No. 09-CV-02860, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 21425, at *7, 2010 WL 668065 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010) (quoting J & J Sports Prods., 

Inc. v. Guzman, No. 08-CV-05469, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32273, at *5, 2009 WL 1034218 (N.D. 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cal. Apr. 16, 2009)). The statute provides for statutory damages ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 

for each violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

Plaintiff also mentions another potential basis for relief - 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) - but 

does not directly request damages under that statute. Plaintiff did, however, allege that Defendant

violated that statute in the Complaint. Section 553 proscribes “a person from ‘intercepting or 

receiving or assisting in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable 

system.’” Ro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21425, at *8 (quoting J & J Sports Prods, Inc., v. Manzano, 

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84931, at *5, 2008 WL 4542962 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008)). In essence, § 

553 prohibits “both illegally receiving cable programming and helping others to illegally receive 

cable programming.” Manzano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84931, at *5. Statutory damages under 

Section 553 range from $250 to a maximum of $10,000, “as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 

553(c)(3)(A)(ii).

Sections 605 and 553 are not coextensive because each section prohibits a distinct method 

of interception. Indeed, “[a] signal pirate violates section 553 if he intercepts a cable signal, he 

violates section 605 if he intercepts a satellite broadcast.” Ro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21425, at 

*8. “But he cannot violate both by a single act of interception.” Id. at *8.

Here, Plaintiff admits that Kaplan was unable to determine the exact means used by 

Defendant to intercept the Event. In fact, Kaplan makes no comment on the actual means of 

interception in his affidavit. Under circumstances such as these, this court has found § 553 a more 

appropriate basis for the calculation of damages. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lorenzana, 

No. 5:13-cv-05925 EJD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110784, at *8-9, 2014 WL 3965097 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 11, 2014); see also J & J Sports Prods. v. Ocampo, No. 5:15-cv-00982-EJD, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 126100, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2015). This is because a satellite dish, which requires 

an unobstructed view of the sky, is not easily hidden. A cable box, on the other hand, is easily 

hidden. On this showing, the court concludes that Defendant must have intercepted the program 

via a cable signal in violation of § 553 and not § 605.

Consistent with its prior orders on this topic, the court awards Plaintiff $250 in statutory 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

damages under § 553. This amount is especially appropriate here because Plaintiff did little if 

anything to develop the record. Since he visited Los Jarritos for one minute or less during the 

broadcast of the Event, it is understandable why Plaintiff’s investigator failed to determine the one 

critical fact that separates a § 553 violation from a § 605 violation. Only the minimum amount of 

statutory damages is justified on this record. 

As to Plaintiff’s request under § 553(c)(3)(B), enhanced damages of no more than $50,000 

may be warranted if the court finds “that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of 

commercial advantage or private financial gain.” The Ninth Circuit has not set forth controlling 

factors for the determination of when enhanced damages are appropriate in this context, but 

various factors specific to this unique line of cases have been considered by district courts. These 

include the “use of cover charge, increase in food price during programming, presence of 

advertisement, number of patrons, number of televisions used, and impact of the offender’s 

conduct on the claimant.” Concepcion, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60607, at *10. Enhanced damages 

have also been awarded when the defendant has violated sections 605 or 553 on previous 

occasions. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Paniagua, No. 10-CV-05141-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 33940, at *5-6, 2011 WL 996257 (N.D. Cal. Mar 21, 2011).

In this case, Plaintiff admits there are “no egregious circumstances” to support a sizeable 

award of enhanced damages. Defendant did not charge a cover to patrons nor is there any 

evidence that Defendant increased prices or required food or drink purchases during the Event. 

The number of patrons in Los Jarritos during Kaplan’s minute-long investigation was only 10. 

Since there is no evidence that Defendant broadcast the program for any particular commercial

advantage or private financial gain, Plaintiff is entitled to $2,200 in enhanced damages, which 

represents the value of the commercial license to air the program.2This amount properly accounts 

for the broadcast’s impact on Plaintiff and is sufficient deter future conduct by Defendant and 

 

2 Although Gagliardi states in his affidavit that the cost to purchase a license would have been 

$2,000 for an establishment with Los Jarritos’ capacity, the rate card indicates it actually would 

have been $2,200. Gagliardi Aff., at Ex. 2. 

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04021-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

other similarly-situated establishments.

C. Conversion

Plaintiff requests damages for the tort of conversion in the amount Defendant would have 

been required to pay for a license, which as noted is $2,200. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3336. “The 

elements of conversion are: 1) ownership of a right to possession of property; 2) wrongful 

dissolution of the property right of another; and 3) damages.” Paniagua, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

33940, at *6. Damages for conversion are “based on the value of the property at the time of the 

conversion.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that it owns the right to distribute the Event and has properly 

alleged the misappropriation of the right to distribute the program. As to damages, the “value of 

the property” was the value of the commercial license, or $2,200. Accordingly, the court awards 

Plaintiff $2,200 in damages for conversion.

V. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED. 

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $4,650.00 

in total damages.

The hearing scheduled for May 19, 2016, is VACATED and the Clerk shall close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04021-EJD Document 20 Filed 05/16/16 Page 7 of 7