Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02211/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02211-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed 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 Incorporated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Anjani Komar Singh, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-02211-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 46) 

and has determined that summary disposition is appropriate. The Motion is denied.

The Motion argues that this Court’s decision denying enhanced statutory damages 

under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(c)(ii) is in error. The reason proffered is based on a line in 

the Order wherein the Court analyzed Defendants’ use of Facebook to promote an inrestaurant viewing of the 2017 International Indian Film Academy Awards Program. 

(Doc. 41 at 5.) The Court observed, “[w]hile probative on other issues, the Facebook 

advertisements say nothing about whether Defendants were aware that their actions 

violated Plaintiffs’ exclusive distribution rights.” From this statement, the Motion 

extrapolates that the Court imposed a knowledge requirement for enhanced damages.

The Motion’s argument misses something rather important. Section 

605(e)(3)(c)(ii) provides, in full:

In any case in which the court finds that the violation was 

committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect 

commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in 

Case 2:18-cv-02211-MTL Document 48 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether 

actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 

for each violation of subsection (a).

A critical part of the statute is that it permits the Court to impose enhanced 

damages “in its discretion.” In exercising its discretion in this case, the Court has decided 

that enhanced damages are not appropriate. While the evidence presented by Plaintiff on 

summary judgment was enough to establish liability and statutory damages, the Court 

found it insufficient to justify a further award under § 605(e)(3)(c)(ii). 

After reading the Motion, the Court is left with the impression that Plaintiff 

considers aggressive litigation and resulting damage awards under 47 U.S.C. § 605 as a 

profit center for its business. To the extent that observation is correct, the Court rejects it. 

Given the facts of this case, the Court believes that the damages award previously entered 

fairly compensates Plaintiff for the violation and furthers the policy objective set by 

Congress.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 

46).

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-02211-MTL Document 48 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 2