Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03932/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03932-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Communications Act of 1994

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GERARDO GUERRERO GONZALEZ, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03932-VC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Docket No. 26

J & J Sports Production, Inc. has sued the defendants, for unlawfully intercepting and 

broadcasting a boxing match for which J & J Sports owned the television distribution rights. 

Default was entered on February 4, 2015. J & J Sports now moves for a default judgment against 

the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). 

The factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-92 (9th 

Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of entering a default judgment. First, because default has been entered, 

J & J Sports' factual allegations are accepted as true, except for those relating to the amount of 

damages. Second, if the motion were denied, J & J Sports would be without a remedy and would 

be prejudiced. Third, the amount of money at stake is moderate. Fourth, default was not the result 

of excusable neglect. The defendants were properly served and have not appeared in this case. 

See Docket Nos. 16 and 17. 

Conversion

Taken as true, J & J Sports' factual allegations support a conversion claim: (1) J & J Sports 

purchased licensing rights to the program at issue, (2) the defendants did not have the right to 

broadcast it, and (3) the defendants' establishment has a capacity of 60 people, so they would have 

been required to pay $2,200 for a subleasing agreement. Accordingly, J & J Sports is entitled to 

Case 3:14-cv-03932-VC Document 30 Filed 04/24/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

damages for conversion and is awarded $2,200 for this claim. 

Statutory Damages 

J & J Sports also seeks damages under Section 605, but damages are more appropriate 

under Section 553 in this case. Section 605 prohibits "radio" or satellite interception, while 

Section 553 prohibits cable interception. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 605, 553. It also provides for higher 

penalties than Section 553. J & J Sports does not provide any evidence that the defendants 

transmitted the program via satellite, and in fact, its investigator stated he did not see a satellite 

dish on the property. See Declaration of Affiant, Anthony Dazhan. Accordingly, the Court will 

apply Section 553. See J & J Sports Prod., Inc. v. Sergura, 2014 WL 1618577, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

April 21, 2014) (applying Section 553, rather than Section 605, where the plaintiff's investigator 

did not state whether the broadcast was transmitted via satellite dish or cable box); J & J Sports 

Prod., Inc. v. Concepcion, 2011 WL 2220101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2011) (same). 

Under Section 553, a court may award up to $60,000 in statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. §

553(c)(3)(A)(ii) and (c)(3)(B). The Court finds that an award of $1,000 is sufficient to deter future 

violations by the defendants and to compensate the plaintiff. Although there were 20 patrons and 

two televisions showing the program, there was no cover charge and no evidence the restaurant 

charged a premium for food or drinks or advertised for the fight. Furthermore, there is no 

evidence the defendants are repeat offenders. The Court declines to award enhanced statutory 

damages. 

Accordingly, J & J Sports is awarded $3,200 in total damages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03932-VC Document 30 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 2