Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00922/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00922-0/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. 

Arthur D. Greathouse, individually and dba 

Silver Martini and Wine Bar; and Wildcat 

Enterprise, LLC, an unknown business 

entity dba Silver Martini and Wine Bar, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00922-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment of J & J Sports 

Productions, Incorporated (“J & J Sports”) (Doc. 27) and the Motion to Strike of 

Defendants Arthur D. Greathouse and Wildcat Enterprise, LLC. (Doc. 31.) For the 

following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and the Motion to Strike 

is granted in part and denied in part. 

BACKGROUND 

 On May 7, 2011, an investigator employed by J & J Sports observed a boxing 

match being played on twelve televisions at the Silver Martini and Wine Bar (“Silver 

Martini”) in Phoenix, Arizona. The boxing match, Manny Pacquiao vs. Shane Mosley 

WBO World Welterweight Championship Program, (the “Program”) was telecast 

nationwide on closed-circuit television. J & J Sports held the exclusive commercial 

distribution rights to the broadcast and claims that Defendants intercepted the Program 

either from its cable or satellite transmissions. Mr. Greathouse and Wildcat have both 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

admitted and denied having ownership of Silver Martini. However, they have 

consistently denied authorizing the showing of the Program and have provided a sworn 

affidavit to this effect. 

 J & J Sports now moves for summary judgment that Defendants intercepted and 

published the Program without its authorization, in violation of the Federal 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and/or the Cable Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 553. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Strike 

Defendants move to strike J & J Sports’ Motion for Summary Judgment because it 

is based, in large part, on the Defendants’ purported failure to respond to a request for 

admissions during discovery. J & J Sports is correct in stating that a failure to respond to 

a request for an admission is deemed to be an admission. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; 

O’Campo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1958) (“Under Rule 36 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure the plaintiff, by her failure to answer the request for admissions 

as required by the rule, admitted the truth of all the matters contained in the request for 

admissions.”). J & J Sports states that it sent requests for admissions to both Mr. 

Greathouse and to Wildcat, but that Wildcat did not respond. However, the record 

indicates otherwise. Both parties concede that Mr. Greathouse is a managing member of 

Wildcat and that he responded to the request for admission. Although part of the 

Defendants’ response to J & J Sports’ request for admission used the singular 

“Defendant,” Mr. Greathouse was clearly speaking on behalf of both Defendants. The 

Defendants’ answer to the request was signed by both Defendants’ attorneys and refers 

specifically to Wildcat. (Doc. 29, Ex. 2.) In addition, many of the documents submitted 

on behalf of Mr. Greathouse and Wildcat, including the briefings for the current Motions, 

have been filed jointly. Thus, Wildcat’s purported failure to respond to J & J Sports’ 

request was not an admission. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

 Although Wildcat’s actions were not an admission, Defendants’ request to strike 

the entire Motion for Summary Judgment is overbroad. J & J Sports bases its Motion not 

only on the purported admissions of Wildcat, but also on the sworn affidavit of its 

investigator. The portion of the Motion relying on the purported admissions will, 

therefore, be stricken and ignored, but the rest of the Motion will still be considered. See 

Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It is well 

settled that only admissible evidence may be considered by the trial court in ruling on a 

motion for summary judgment.”). 

II. Summary Judgment 

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). Substantive law determines which facts are material, and “[o]nly disputes over 

facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly 

preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

248 (1986). “A fact issue is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could 

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, the nonmoving 

party must show that the genuine factual issues “‘can be resolved only by a finder of fact 

because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.’” Cal. Architectural 

Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(original emphasis omitted) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250). When considering a 

motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party’s evidence is “to be believed, and 

all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

 Section 605 prohibits interception of satellite television signals. DirecTV, Inc. v. 

Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008). “[T]o be held liable for a violation of [47 

U.S.C. § 605], a defendant must be shown to have (1) intercepted or aided the 

interception of, and (2) divulged or published, or aided the divulging or publishing of, a 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

communication transmitted by the plaintiff.” Nat’l Subscription Television v. S & H TV, 

644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1981). Section 553 prohibits any person from intercepting, 

receiving, or assisting in the intercepting or receiving of any communications “offered 

over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may 

otherwise be specifically authorized by law.” 47 U.S.C. § 553. 

 Because J & J Sports has alternately alleged that Defendants intercepted cable and 

satellite signals, both section 553 and 605 are potentially applicable. Courts presented 

with similar allegations have held section 605 controls because it “provides for greater 

damages and mandates attorney’s fees.” Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Guzman, No. 

CV-07-0963-PHX-PGR, 2008 WL 1924988, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2008); see also 

International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 997 F.2d 998, 1009 (2nd Cir. 1993); Kingvision 

Pay–Per–View. Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Thus, the 

Court’s analysis will be limited to section 605. 

 Violation of section 605 is a strict liability offense. See 47 U.S.C. § 605; Don King 

Prods./Kingvision v. Lovato, No. C-95-2827 (TEH), 1996 WL 682006, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 15, 1996) (“The Cable Communications Act imposes strict liability under 47 U.S.C. 

§§ 553 and 605.”). However, damages may be reduced substantially for violations that 

are not willful. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(c)(iii) (“[W]here the court finds that the violator was 

not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, 

the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than 

$250.”). Interception and publication of programs may be proved by circumstantial 

evidence. Webb, 545 F.3d at 844 (“Circumstantial evidence may be sufficiently 

persuasive. Signal piracy is by its nature a surreptitious venture and direct evidence of 

actual interception may understandably be hard to come by.”). 

II. Analysis 

A. Interception and Publication 

J & J Sports has provided a sworn affidavit by its investigator that the Program 

was being broadcast at Silver Martini and Wine Bar on May 7, 2011. (Doc. 27, Ex. 3.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

Further, in its Complaint, J & J Sports provided the following two allegations: 

7. Defendant Arthur D. Greathouse is the managing member of Wildcat Enterprise, LLC, which owns and operates the commercial establishment doing business as Silver Martini 

and Wine Bar. . . . 

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that on May 7, 2011 (the night of the Program at issue herein, as more specifically defined in paragraph 16), Defendant Arthur D. Greathouse had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Silver Martini and Wine Bar, which included the 

unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s Program. 

(Doc. 1.) Defendants’ Answer provided the following responses: 

7. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Eight (8) of the Complaint. . . . 

9. Defendant admits that on May 7, 2011, he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Silver Martini and Wine 

Bar. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Nine (9) of the Complaint. 

(Doc. 19.) 

 Defendants’ Response to the current Motion states that they did not own or 

operate the Silver Martini and Wine Bar on May 7, 2011 because the bar did not exist at 

that date. (Doc. 29.) This is a direct contradiction of the above-quoted statements in their 

Answer. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[f]actual assertions in pleadings and pretrial 

orders, unless amended, are considered judicial admissions conclusively binding on the 

party who made them.” Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citations omitted). Other courts have similarly held that parties “are bound by 

admissions in their pleadings, and a party cannot create a factual issue by subsequently 

filing a conflicting affidavit.” Hughes v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 

2000); see also Bank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162, 1173 

(7th Cir. 1996) (“When a party seeks to create an issue of fact by simply submitting an 

affidavit which directly contradicts a witness’ earlier sworn comments, a court rightly 

ignores the later submission since it creates no genuine factual dispute.”). Thus, 

Defendants are bound to the admission in their Answer that Wildcat owns and operates 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

Silver Martini and Wine Bar and that on May 7, 2011, Mr. Greathouse “had the right and 

ability to supervise the activities of Silver Martini and Wine Bar.” (Doc. 19.) 

 This admission, along with the affidavit of the investigator of J & J Sports that the 

Match was playing at Silver Martini on May 7, 2011, provides some apparently 

admissible evidence that Defendants intercepted and published the Program. Several 

courts have held that such evidence, if uncontested, provides a basis on which to grant 

summary judgment for a violation of section 605. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Vargas, 

No. CV-11-02229-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 1249206, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2013) 

(“Plaintiff has met its initial burden of pointing out to the Court the basis for the motion 

for summary judgment on the 605 claim and the elements of the 605 claim.”); J & J 

Sports Prods., Inc. v. Morales, No. 1:10-CV-01694-AWI, 2011 WL 6749080, at *3 (E.D. 

Cal. Dec. 22, 2011) (same). However, in this case, Defendants have provided other 

evidence that they neither intercepted nor published the Program. Mr. Greathouse 

provides a sworn affidavit stating: “I did not order the Program, nor direct anyone else to 

order the Program. Furthermore, I did not broadcast the Program at the Silver Martini and 

Wine Bar.” (Doc. 29, Ex. 5.) The affidavit later states that neither Mr. Greathouse nor 

Wildcat intercepted or decoded the Program to allow viewing at the Silver Martini. (Id.) 

 As noted above, it is well settled law that a nonmoving party’s evidence is “to be 

believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. 

at 255. “Moreover, courts generally are much more lenient with the affidavits of a party 

opposing a summary judgment motion.” Scharf v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 597 F.2d 1240, 1243 

(9th Cir. 1979). Viewed in the light most favorable to Defendants, the nonmoving parties, 

the sworn statements in Mr. Greathouse’s affidavit show that there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether either he or Wildcat intercepted or broadcast the Program. 

CONCLUSION 

 There are genuine issues of material fact outstanding as to whether Defendants 

intercepted and broadcast J & J Sports’ Program that aired on May 7, 2011. Because of 

these outstanding factual issues, the Court will not consider J & J Sports’ request for 

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 27) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Arthur D. Greathouse and 

Wildcat Enterprise, LLC’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

 Dated this 19th day of February, 2015. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00922-GMS Document 37 Filed 02/19/15 Page 7 of 7