Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02406/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02406-0/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

1

Plaintiff’s complaint also seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. § 553, which governs the

unauthorized interception of cable communications. In its motion for default judgment,

however, plaintiff requests recovery under 47 U.S.C. § 605 only. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J & J Sports Productions Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Erario Pineda; ET LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02406-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (doc. 14). 

Plaintiff was granted the exclusive commercial right to distribute the “Tactical Warfare”:

Manny Pacquiao v. Antonio Margarito, WBC Light Middleweight Championship Fight

Program telecast on Saturday, November 13, 2010 via closed-circuit television (“the

Program”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants willfully and unlawfully intercepted and

exhibited the Program at La Cabana, a drink establishment located in Glendale, Arizona, in

violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (governing unlawful interception of satellite signals).1

 Although

served, defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The clerk

entered default against defendants on February 20, 2013 (doc. 12). Plaintiff now seeks

Case 2:12-cv-02406-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/24/13 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

- 2 -

default judgment against defendants in the amount of $114,200.00, plus attorney’s fees and

costs. 

Section 605(a) of the Communications Act prohibits the unauthorized receipt and use

of radio communications, including satellite television signals, for one’s own benefit or the

benefit of another. DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008). Under § 605,

a plaintiff can recover either actual or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C).

Statutory damages are available “in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000" for

each violation “as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). To determine

an appropriate reward, the court balances the need to deter future illegal conduct against the

harm that will result to the defendant’s business if significant damages are assessed.

Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999). 

If a court “finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct

or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may exercise discretion and

increase the damages award by up to $100,000 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).

“Courts use a variety of factors in determining whether a defendant’s conduct is subject to

enhanced damages for willfulness under § 605, 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 premium for

food and drinks during the broadcast.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Guzman, 2008 WL

1924988, at *3 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2008). 

By defaulting, defendants admit that they intercepted and exhibited 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. ¶ 20 (doc. 1). We conclude that statutory damages under §

605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of $3,000 is appropriate. Plaintiff’s request for enhanced

damages of $100,000, however, is “manifestly excessive.” See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.

v. Streshly, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1139 (S. D. Cal. 2009) (stating that the court will “not

indulge Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain the biggest judgment it can by filing cookie-cutter

Case 2:12-cv-02406-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/24/13 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 -

pleadings”). 

The Cabana is a commercial establishment with a maximum capacity of 200 people.

According to plaintiff’s investigator, there were approximately 200 patrons in the

establishment while the Program was displayed on one television. Patrons were not charged

a cover fee, and there is no evidence that defendants advertised the Program to draw

additional crowds, or charged either a cover fee or a premium for food or drinks. Affidavit

at 2. Moreover there are no allegations of prior infringement or of plaintiff’s having suffered

significant actual damages. Therefore, under the facts of this case, we conclude that an

enhanced damages award of $2,000 is reasonable. A total damages award of $5,000 will

both compensate plaintiff and act as a deterrent against future violations.

Plaintiff also seeks $4,200 in damages for conversion. However, it presents no

argument or evidence to support this request. We decline to award any additional damages

on the conversion claim. 

Finally, plaintiff’s general request for attorney’s fees is denied. Plaintiff must file a

motion for attorney’s fees in accordance with LRCiv 54.2. Plaintiff’s counsel should charge

only for hours actually expended on this case, taking into account the boilerplate pleadings

and motion-related forms used by this counsel in hundreds of other similar actions. 

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 $5,000. 

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02406-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/24/13 Page 3 of 3