Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00384-0/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.

Mustafa Erdem; Mohammed F. Ali; M

Square Business Ventures LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-00384-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for default judgment (doc. 14). When

considering a motion for default judgment we take a complaint's well-pled allegations

regarding liability as true. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff was granted the exclusive commercial distribution rights to "Ultimate

Fighting Championship 127: BJ Penn v. Jon Fitch," broadcast nationwide on February 26,

2011 ("the Program"). Defendants own and operate Gus's New York Pizza, a restaurant in

Phoenix, Arizona. The restaurant, which did not have rights to display the Program,

displayed it on five televisions located throughout the restaurant. Three separate head counts

revealed that 38, 40, and 44 patrons were at the restaurant that night. There was no cover

charge for entry. The restaurant's capacity is approximately 50 people. 

Plaintiff filed this action seeking relief under three counts: (1) violation of 47 U.S.C.

§ 605; (2) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; and (3) conversion. Default was entered by the Clerk

Case 2:12-cv-00384-FJM Document 15 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 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

1

 Because defendants defaulted, plaintiff cannot determine what type of signal

transmission was used. Plaintiff asks for recovery under 47 U.S.C. § 605 rather than 47

U.S.C. § 553. 

- 2 -

against defendants on May 23, 2012 (doc. 13). Defendants have not moved to set aside

default and have not otherwise appeared.

To recover under 47 U.S.C. § 605, plaintiff must show that (1) defendants intercepted

and (2) "divulged or published. . . a communication transmitted by" plaintiff. Nat'l

Subscription Television v. S & H TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1981). Under the statute,

plaintiff can recover statutory damages. These damages cannot be less than $1,000 and

cannot exceed $10,000. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Moreover, if defendants intercepted

and published the communication "willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial

advantage or private financial gain," the damages award may be increased by up to $100,000

per violation. Id. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). Courts consider a number of factors in deciding

whether to award enhanced damages, 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, CV-07-0963-PHX-PGR,

2008 WL 1924988, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2008). To determine an appropriate award, we

balance the need to deter future illegal conduct against the harm that will result to the

defendants' business if significant damages are assessed. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd.

v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).

 By defaulting, defendants admit that they published the Program to their patrons

without obtaining a license from plaintiff in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, and did so

"willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private

financial gain." Compl. ¶ 25 (doc. 1).1

 We conclude that a statutory damages award of

$10,000 under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) is appropriate.

However, the facts do not support entry of a full $100,000 in enhanced damages as

requested. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence suggesting that defendants have

Case 2:12-cv-00384-FJM Document 15 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

previously infringed. There is also no evidence that plaintiff incurred substantial actual

damages. No cover charge was collected, and plaintiff has not shown that defendants

charged a premium for food and beverages. Moreover, the restaurant has a relatively small

capacity, and was not full. At most, the Program was displayed to 44 people. Thus, there

is no indication that defendants substantially profited from displaying the Program. We are

conscious, however, of the influence that a substantial damages award may have on deterring

future violations. We conclude that an enhanced damages award of $5,000 is reasonable.

The total damages award of $15,000 will serve to compensate plaintiff, and is substantial

enough to deter future violations.

Plaintiff requests an award of $900 on its conversion claim. However, it presents no

argument or evidence to support this request. Therefore, we decline to award an additional

amount on the conversion claim.

Finally, plaintiff requests an award of its costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff may file

a bill of costs in accordance with LRCiv 54.1, and a motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to

LRCiv 54.2. We will rule on a motion for attorneys' fees if and when one is before us.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for default judgment (doc. 14).

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount

of $15,000. 

DATED this 20th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00384-FJM Document 15 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 3