Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01623/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01623-0/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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

J & J Sports Productions Incorporated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Pedro H. Cruz, individually, and d/b/a 

Mariscos El Malecon, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-12-01623-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 17). 

The Court now rules on the Motion. 

 The Clerk of the Court entered default on February 15, 2013. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff 

now seeks default judgment in the amount of $112,200.00. Plaintiff’s damages are 

broken down into three categories: 1) statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II); 2) enhanced damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); and 3) 

conversion damages pursuant to Arizona law. Plaintiff seeks $10,000, $100,000, and 

$2,200, in the respective categories. (Doc. 17-2 at 2). 

 Statutory damages are appropriate when actual damages cannot be easily proven. 

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Canedo, No. C 09-01488 PJH, 2009 WL 4572740, *5 (N.D. 

Cal. 2009). “Under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), an aggrieved party may recover ‘a sum not less 

than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just’ for each violation.” J & J 

Sports Prods. Inc. v. Miramontes, No. CV-10-02345-PHX-FJM, 2011 WL 892350, at *2 

Case 2:12-cv-01623-JAT Document 19 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

(D. Ariz. March 14, 2011) (internal citation omitted). Further, “[a]n award of damages 

should deter future conduct but not destroy the business.” Id. (quoting Kingvision Pay–

Per–View v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 360 (9th Cir. 2009)). 

 In awarding statutory damages, courts in this district have considered factors such 

as the maximum capacity of the commercial establishment, the total number of patrons 

present at the time of the unauthorized showing, and the amount defendant would have 

paid if it had purchased the rights to show the broadcast. See, e.g., id. 

In this case, Defendants’ establishment had a maximum of 10 patrons at the time 

the boxing match was broadcast. (Doc. 17-3 at 2). Plaintiff has provided no information 

about the maximum capacity of the establishment. Because Plaintiff has provided no 

information about the maximum capacity of the establishment, the Court cannot 

determine the amount Defendants would have paid if they had purchased the rights to 

show the broadcast. Moreover, the evidence that Plaintiff presented with regard to the 

licensing fee is inconsistent. Compare Doc. 18 at 3, ¶ 8 (“if a commercial establishment 

had a maximum fire code occupancy of ten persons, the commercial sublicense fee would 

have been $2,200”) with Doc. 18 at 11 (reflecting that, if a commercial establishment has 

a maximum fire code occupancy of ten persons, the commercial license fee is $1,200). 

Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the size of the establishment and the amount 

Defendants would have paid if they purchased the rights to show the broadcast, the Court 

is left only with the information that 10 patrons saw the unauthorized broadcast. Based 

on number of patrons present, the Court finds a $1,000 penalty to be appropriate and will 

award $1,000 under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). 

 Further, “[e]nhanced damages are awarded upon a showing that defendant acted 

willfully and for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private 

financial gain. Under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), the court may award up to $100,000 . . .” 

Miramontes, 2011 WL 892350, *2. In deciding whether to award enhanced damages, 

Courts generally consider factors such as repeat violations, 

substantial unlawful monetary gains, significant actual 

Case 2:12-cv-01623-JAT Document 19 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

damages to plaintiff, advertising, cover charges, or charging 

premium menu and drink prices. See Kingvision Pay–Per–

View v. Gutierrez, 544 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1185 (D. Colo. 

2008). Some courts find the mere unauthorized showing of a 

program sufficient to award enhanced damages because given 

the low probability of accidentally showing it, it must have 

been done willfully and for profit. See Entertainment By J & 

J, Inc. v. Al–Waha Enter., Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 769, 776 (S.D. 

Tex. 2002). 

Id.

 Here, there is no evidence of repeat violations, substantial unlawful monetary 

gains, advertising, cover charges, or premium drink or menu prices. Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendants’ showing of the fight was willful and that allegation is accepted as true for 

purposes of default judgment. (Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 23). Thus, some measure of enhanced 

damages is appropriate, but not the statutory maximum of $100,000 that Plaintiff seeks. 

Because the violation was willful, the Court will award $10,000 in enhanced damages. 

See also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Coen, 2012 WL 2919710, *2 (D. Ariz. July 17, 

2012) (awarding $10,000 in enhanced damages for deterrence purposes). 

 Plaintiff also requests summary judgment on its conversion claim. “Conversion is 

any act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another’s personal property in denial of or 

inconsistent with his rights therein.” Scott v. Allstate Ins. Co., 553 P.2d 1221, 

1225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). Under Arizona law, “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). 

 Plaintiff has not provided any supporting material to show that the value of what 

was converted in this case was $2,200.00. Accordingly, because the Court has no 

evidence of conversion damages, the request for conversion damages will be denied, 

including that the Court will not award nominal damages.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 17) as 

specified above; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and 

Case 2:12-cv-01623-JAT Document 19 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

against Defendants in the amount of $11,000. Plaintiff may move for attorneys’ fees as 

provided in the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.1

 Dated this 19th day of September, 2013. 

 

1

 Statutory and Enhanced Damages arise under Court I of the Complaint. 

Conversion Damages arise under Count III of the Complaint. Count II of the Complaint 

seeks $60,000 under 47 U.S.C. § 553. Because the motion for default judgment does not 

mention this claim, the Court deems it to be dismissed with prejudice with Plaintiff to 

take nothing on Count II. 

Case 2:12-cv-01623-JAT Document 19 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 4