Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00935/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00935-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-935-MMA-BLM

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. Nos. 37, 42]

vs.

MICHAEL E. CUSI, et al.,

Defendants.

This case arises out of an unauthorized exhibition of a pay-per-view Ultimate

Fighting Championship event. Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Joe Hand” or

“Plaintiff”), the commercial distributor of the program, sued Michael Cusi, Raquel

Regno, Raymond Regno, and CGC Brazilian Jui Jitsu, Inc. (“Defendants”), for

displaying the event without proper licensing. Before the Court are cross motions

for summary judgment on the claims asserted in this action. For the reasons stated

below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all

federal causes of action, DENIES Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment,

and DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Joe Hand is a closed circuit distributor of sports and entertainment

programming. Joe Hand purchased and retained the exclusive commercial

1

 The following facts are not reasonably in dispute, unless otherwise noted.

- 1 - 13-CV-935

Case 3:13-cv-00935-MMA-BLM Document 48 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 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

exhibition licensing rights to “Ultimate Fighting Championship 145: Jon Jones v.

Rashad Evans” to be shown on April 21, 2012 (the “Event”). Thereafter, Joe Hand

marketed the sub-licensing rights to its commercial customers, including casinos,

racetracks, bars, restaurants, and nightclubs. On April 21, 2012, Defendants

broadcast the Event at their establishment, Stronghold CrossFit & Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

(“Stronghold Crossfit”), without receiving the contractual authorization from Joe

Hand or paying the fee required to do so. Defendants contend that they lawfully

purchased and streamed the event over the internet, and that the establishment

functioned as a private residence at the time of the viewing.

On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff Joe Hand filed this action against Defendants,

alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. section 553, 47 U.S.C. section 605, California

Business and Professions Code section 17000 et seq., and conversion. Defendants

now seek summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine

issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose

of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323–24 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of

the basis for the motion, and identifying portions of the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of

a triable issue of material fact. Id. at 323. The evidence and all reasonable

inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630–31

(9th Cir. 1987).

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the

nonmoving party to present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of

material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The opposing party “must do more

- 2 - 13-CV-935

Case 3:13-cv-00935-MMA-BLM Document 48 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 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

than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). If the

motion and supporting materials, including facts considered undisputed, show the

movant is entitled to summary judgment, the court may grant the motion. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(e)(3).

DISCUSSION

A. Claims Arising Under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 & 605

Plaintiff’s primary causes of action arise under the Cable Communications

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 553 (“Section 553”), and the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605

(“Section 605”). A person violates Section 553 when he “intercept[s] or receive[s] .

. . any communications service offered over a cable system” without authorization. 

47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1). Section 605 “prohibits commercial establishments from

intercepting and broadcasting to its patrons satellite cable programming.” Kingvision

Pay-Per-View v. Guzman, Case No. C-09-00217, 2009 WL 1475722, at *2 (N.D.

Cal. May 27, 2009). Pursuant to Section 605:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance,

purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any

person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in

receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such

communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled

thereto.

47 U.S.C. § 605(a).

Both Section 605 and Section 553 permit any aggrieved party to bring suit

against the violator in federal court. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(A); 47 U.S.C. §

553(c)(1). Further, both Section 605 and Section 553 are strict liability statutes. See

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Delgado, Case No. 10-2517-WBS, 2012 WL 371630, at

- 3 - 13-CV-935

Case 3:13-cv-00935-MMA-BLM Document 48 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 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

*3 (E.D. Cal. Feb.3, 2012).

Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate because Sections 605

and 553 do not apply to programs received and displayed over the internet. 

Defendants contend that they purchased the Event over the internet,2

 so that their

actions cannot be governed by statutes designed to combat interceptions of satellite

or cable signals.

Plaintiff contends that the type of internet service determines whether liability

exists under Sections 503 or 605. Plaintiff states, “[w]hat Defendants fail to address

is how they accessed the internet . . . . The signal came from somewhere.” [Pl’s

Opp. at 4.] To support this proposition, Plaintiff cites Zuffa, LLC v. Kamranian,

2013 WL 1196632 (D. N.D. March 25, 2013). There, a sports bar streamed an

Ultimate Fighting Championship event via the internet without authorization. The

defendant produced evidence demonstrating that it had cable internet. Accordingly,

the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Section 605 claim, as Section 605 only covered

“radio” (i.e., satellite) signals.3

Even assuming that Plaintiff is correct that the type of internet service

determines whether liability exists under Sections 503 and 605,4

 Plaintiff has failed

to produce any evidence tending to demonstrate the type of internet used by

Defendants. Moreover, as the discovery phase of the case is complete, Plaintiff

cannot produce admissible evidence to support a necessary fact to support its claims

under Sections 553 and 605. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court

2

 Though Defendants do not provide any evidence demonstrating which internet site they accessed to purchase the Event.

3

 Notably, the plaintiff did not include a cause of action under Section 553, which

covers cable signals.

4

 The Court has no confidence in this assumption, and is generally skeptical that feeds received over the internet from a third party violate Sections 553 or 605. See,

e.g., Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 541, 549 (“[I]t does not appear that the Communications Act was intended by Congress, or has been interpreted by the courts, as imposing liability on a party who receives a transmission from a user who received or intercepted a broadcast signal from a cable or satellite provider.”).

- 4 - 13-CV-935

Case 3:13-cv-00935-MMA-BLM Document 48 Filed 05/14/14 Page 4 of 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

enters summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s federal statutory

claims.

B. Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Remaining State Law Claims 

Based on the foregoing, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the

two state law claims that remain pending in this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),

a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim “if the

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000–01

(9th Cir. 1997) (“in the usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated

before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims”) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon

University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Having resolved the federal

causes of action, the Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

state law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for conversion and for violation of

California Business and Professions Code section 17200 are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, DENIES Plaintiff’s cross motion

for summary judgment, and DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, this order disposes of all claims and

concludes the litigation in the matter. 

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and

terminate the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13-CV-935

Case 3:13-cv-00935-MMA-BLM Document 48 Filed 05/14/14 Page 5 of 5