Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02043/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02043-0/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 

Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lisa Marie Donaldson, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02043-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the 

“Motion”) (Doc. 28), to which Defendants, who are pro se, have failed to file any 

response in opposition. Having considered the Motion in light of the relevant record, the 

Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled 

to the entry of judgment in its favor as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

I. BACKGROUND 

For purposes of the Court’s resolution of the pending Motion, the Court considers 

the relevant facts and background, viewed in Defendant’s favor,1

 to be as follows.2 

This action arises from the alleged unlawful interception and broadcast of the 

Ultimate Fighting Championship 165: Jon Jones v. Alexander Gustafsson (hereinafter 

 

1 In the summary judgment context, the Court construes all disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 

(9th Cir. 2004). 

2

 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 29) is primarily based on Defendants’ admissions, inter alia, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Doc. 28-3 

at 8–36), to which Defendants failed to respond. 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 13
- 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 

“the Program”) at Crossroads Bar & Grill on September 21, 2013. (Doc. 29 at 2). Joe 

Hand Promotions Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a business that distributes the rights to 

pay-per-view events to commercial entities for a fee. (Doc. 28-4 at 1–2). Plaintiff 

purports to have been granted the exclusive commercial distribution rights to the 

Program. (Doc. 29 at 2). The Program was telecast nationwide via closed-circuit 

television and included “the main event between Jones and Gustafsson, as well as all 

undercard bouts and commentary encompassed in the television broadcast of the event.” 

(Id. at 1). 

On September 21, 2013, the Program was exhibited on televisions at Crossroads 

Bar & Grill, a commercial establishment located at 5030 W. McDowell Road, #39, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85035. (Doc. 29 at 2) (Doc. 28-2 at 2). Plaintiff did not authorize 

Crossroads Bar & Grill to broadcast any portion of the Program. (Doc. 29 at 3). 

Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson, the general partner and manager of Crossroads B & G 

Family Limited Partnership, d/b/a Crossroads Bar & Grill on September 21, 2013, was 

also not authorized to exhibit the Program. (Id. at 2–3). Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson 

was inside Crossroads Bar & Grill at the time of the broadcast of the Program. (Id. at 3). 

Defendants were aware that a commercial sub-licensing fee had to be paid to Plaintiff to 

lawfully broadcast the Program at Crossroads Bar & Grill, but Defendants did not obtain 

such a license. (Id.) 

 On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against James R. Lumley, 

individually and as an officer of Crossroads Bar & Grill, and against Crossroads B & G 

Limited Partnership, d/b/a Crossroads Bar & Grill. (Doc. 1). On January 8, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Lisa Marie Donaldson individually and as 

an officer of Crossroads Bar & Grill, and against Crossroads B & G Limited Partnership, 

d/b/a Crossroads Bar & Grill. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges claims 

under Title 47 U.S.C. § 605 (2014) and Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (2014). (Id.). The 

Amended Complaint further maintains that Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages in the 

amount of $110,000 as to each Defendant as a result of Defendants’ violation of § 605, or 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 13
- 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 

statutory damages in the amount of $60,000 as a result of Defendants’ violation of § 553. 

(Id. at 8). Finally, the Complaint alleges that the unlawful exhibition of the Program by 

Defendants was done willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage and/or private 

financial gain. (Id. at 5). 

Plaintiff served Defendants with the summons and the Complaint. (Doc. 2). Lisa 

Marie Donaldson, pro se, filed an answer (Doc. 14) on March 18, 2015. In her answer, 

Lisa Marie Donaldson admitted that the Program “was purchased and showed at 5030 W. 

McDowell, #39 Ph[oeni]x, AZ 85035,” the address of Crossroads Bar & Grill (Id.). 

However, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment because the 

Program was only “viewed by the staff and friends,” and “there was no monetary gain.” 

(Id.) 

Though Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson filed an answer to the Complaint, the 

Court notes that she thereafter failed to appear for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference 

held on May 6, 2015. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff served its requests for admissions on 

Defendants on July 30, 2015, but Defendants never responded to them; one set of the 

admissions requests was directed to Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson and one set was 

directed to Defendant Crossroads B & G Limited Partnership. (Doc. 28-3 at 8–36). 

Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) on January 8, 2016, but 

Defendants have also failed to respond to this Motion. 

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows 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). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely 

disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the 

record,” or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence 

of a genuine dispute.” Id. at 56(c)(1)(A–B). Accordingly, summary judgment is 

mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 13
- 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 

the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The moving party initially has the burden to show that material facts are not 

genuinely disputed. Id. at 323. Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving 

party must then establish the existence of material fact by presenting evidence showing 

that there is a genuine issue for a fact-finder to resolve at trial. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). The non-movant “must do more than simply 

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” by “com[ing] 

forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(e) (1963) (amended 2010)). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the 

“evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The non-movant’s bare assertions, 

standing alone, or “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the 

parties” is insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary 

judgment. Id. at 247–248. Further, because “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of 

the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, 

not those of a judge, . . . [t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all 

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor” at the summary judgment stage. Id. at 

255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–159 (1970)); Harris v. 

Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Issues of credibility, including questions 

of intent, should be left to the jury.”) (internal citations omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges two counts: 1) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 

605; and 2) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553. (Doc. 10). However, the Plaintiff is only 

seeking summary judgment damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, as well as an award of costs 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees.3

 (Doc. 28-1 at 20). 

 

3 The Court notes that it is “rather well-established that courts will not award 

damages under both § 605 and § 553 on a set of facts” similar to that in this case. Joe 

Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Streshly, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1137 (S.D. Cal. 2009). See 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 13
- 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 

Defendants’ Failure to Respond to the Motion 

Where the non-movant fails to respond to the movant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, the Court is not required to grant the Motion, even in light of Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure providing “that the Court may deem a party’s failure to respond [. . .] as 

consent to the granting of the motion.” Finkle v. Ryan, CV-14-01343-PHX-DGC, 2016 

WL 1241878, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2016) (finding that plaintiff’s failure to respond to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not warrant granting the motion despite 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i)). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that such local 

rules cannot provide a valid basis for granting a motion for summary judgment where the 

motion is unopposed, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 “authorizes the court to 

consider a fact as undisputed,” but does not allow the court to grant summary judgment 

by default. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that 

Western District of Washington Local Rule 7(b)(2) conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56 and “cannot provide a valid basis for granting a motion for summary 

judgment”). Accordingly, the Court will address the moving party’s motion, in such a 

case, on the merits. Finkle, 2016 WL 1241878, at *3. 

 Here, Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion or file a brief in 

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Regardless of this fact, the Court may 

not grant summary judgment by default against Defendants. Rather, the Court may only 

grant a Motion for Summary Judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

Defendants’ Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions 

 Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Googies Luncheonette, Inc., 77 F. Supp 2d 485, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Where a defendant is liable under both § 553 and § 605, a 

plaintiff is entitled to have damages awarded under 605 which provides for greater 

recovery.”); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Dailey, C-01-4219-CRB, 2003 WL 1342998, 

at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2003) (adopting Second Circuit rule followed in Googies and 

declining to award damages under both statutes absent “either egregious or unusual” 

circumstances). See also Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (“[W]hen liability exists under both provisions, the majority 

of courts—including most courts in the Ninth Circuit—have imposed damages ‘pursuant to § 605 alone rather than cumulatively.’”) (citing Kingvision Pay-Per View v. Arias, C- 99-3017-SI, 2000 WL 20973 at *2 n. 7 (N.D. Cal. Jan 7, 2000)). 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 5 of 13
- 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 

Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to summary judgment because “Defendants 

[have] failed to respond to [the] Request for Admissions and, therefore, Defendants have 

admitted liability herein.” (Doc. 28-1 at 10) As a result, Plaintiff contends that 

Defendants’ admissions, inter alia, establish that “there is no genuine issue of material 

fact regarding whether Defendants unlawfully intercepted and broadcast[ed] the program 

at their commercial establishment.” (Doc. 28-1 at 7–10). This Court agrees, as each of 

the relevant facts necessary to establish Defendants’ liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605 have 

been conclusively established as a result of Defendants’ failure to respond to the requests 

for admissions. See Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as the basis for granting 

summary judgment.”); Layton v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 285 F. 

App’x 340, 341 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “[t]he district court did not err when it 

deemed facts admitted because of [plaintiff-appellant’s] failure to timely respond to 

requests for admission” as a basis for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendantappellee). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, a matter is deemed admitted 

unless “the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written 

answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions on each Defendant on July 

30, 2015, but, as of the current date, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s 

Requests for Admissions. (Doc. 28-1 at 10). Accordingly, because Defendants have 

failed to respond within the statutorily required time frame, Plaintiff’s Requests for 

Admissions are deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). 

While it is undisputed that the Program was shown at Crossroads Bar & Grill on 

September 21, 2013 (Doc. 29 at 2) (Doc. 14 at 1), Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson 

indicated in her answer that “the fight was purchased,” it was “viewed by the staff and 

friends, [and] there was no monetary gain.” (Doc. 14 at 1). Though these statements by 

Defendant directly contradict Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants unlawfully displayed 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 6 of 13
- 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 

the Program “willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage 

and/or private financial gain,” (Doc. 10 at 5) the Court notes that “[e]vidence inconsistent 

with a Rule 36 admission is properly excluded.” 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 869–

70 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) advisory committee note (1970)). See 

also GTE Directories Corp. v. McCartney, 11 F. App’x 735, 737 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding 

that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment where defendant non-moving party’s 

submission of admissible evidence allegedly contradicts the deemed admissions and 

where defendant non-moving party has failed to withdraw these admissions under Rule 

36(b)). Here, Defendants have failed to file a Rule 36(b) motion to withdraw admissions. 

Accordingly, this Court finds that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment even 

though Defendant Lisa Marie Donaldson’s statements in her answer directly contradict 

the deemed admissions. 

Plaintiff’s Claim Under 47 U.S.C. § 605 

Unless one of the exceptions described in subsection (b) apply4

, Title 47 of the 

United States Code Section 605 provides, in part, that the following practices are 

prohibited: 

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 

 

4

 Subsection (b) of 47 U.S.C. § 605, provides that, “[t]he provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting [ . . .] of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable programming for 

private viewing [. . . ]. 47 U.S.C. § 605(b) (emphasis added). The Court notes that the exceptions in subsection (b) of 47 U.S.C. § 605 do not apply to this case, as Defendants’ exhibition of the Program at Crossroads Bar & Grill was not a private viewing. Specifically, subsection (d)(4) of section 605 provides that the “the term ‘private viewing’ means the viewing for private use in an individual’s dwelling unit [. . . ].” 47 

U.S.C. § 605(d)(4). 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 7 of 13
- 8 - 

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 

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). 

Though Section 605(a) of Title 47 of the United States Code does not explicitly 

reference satellite communications, satellite television signals are among the 

communications protected by this statute. Directv, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th 

Cir. 2008); See also Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Guzman, No. CV-07-0963-PHXPGR, 2008 WL 1924988, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2008) (“The position taken by a 

majority of courts is that signals broadcast through the air via radio and satellite are 

generally within the purview of § 605, including programming transmitted via satellite to 

cable operators for their transmission to cable subscribers.”). Further, due to the secretive 

nature of signal piracy ventures, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) “does not require direct evidence to 

support a factual finding,” as “[c]ircumstantial evidence may be sufficiently persuasive” 

to prove unlawful interception. Directv, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d at 844. Finally, 47 

U.S.C. § 605 also provides that “any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted 

communication by wire or radio” may file a “civil action in a United States district 

court.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6), (e)(3)(A). 

 Here, Plaintiff’s claim in the Amended Complaint under 47 U.S.C. § 605 alleges 

that Defendants “did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish, divulge, and/or exhibit the 

Program at the time of its transmission” at Crossroads Bar & Grill, and that they did so 

“[w]ith full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, published, 

divulged, and/or exhibited by commercial entities unauthorized to do so.” (Doc. 10 at 5). 

This Complaint also alleges that this unauthorized exhibition of the Program “by each of 

the Defendants was done willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial 

advantage and/or private financial gain.” (Id.). 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 8 of 13
- 9 - 

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 

 Defendants’ here have failed to respond to the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment as well as the requests for admissions. Accordingly, this Court agrees with 

Plaintiff that Defendants have admitted, inter alia, each of the necessary facts required to 

find Defendants liable under 47 U.S.C. § 605 by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s requests 

for admissions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Specifically, Defendants have admitted each 

of the following, as discussed in Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary 

Judgment: 

(a) They were the owner (Crossroads B&G Family Limited 

Partnership) and officer/manager (Lisa Marie Donaldson 

a/k/a Lisa Marie Warren) of Crossroads Bar & Grill when the 

Program was broadcast, and any persons at the establishment 

serving as bartenders or managers were acting on their behalf. 

(b) Lisa Marie Donaldson [. . .] was present inside Crossroads 

Bar & Grill when the Program was broadcast. 

(c) Defendants did not order the Program from Plaintiff. 

(d) Defendants did not pay a licensing fee to Plaintiff. 

(e) Defendants intercepted and broadcasted the Program at 

Crossroads Bar & Grill [. . .] willfully. 

(f) Defendants were aware that a licensing fee had to be paid 

to Plaintiff for the Program. 

(g) The Program was received because an illegal decoder was 

used in Crossroads Bar & Grill, a satellite access card 

programmed to enable receipt of satellite service without 

proper authorization or payment was utilized, and/or 

Defendants ordered the Program from a programming 

provider (e.g., DISH Network, DirecTV) and paid the 

provider the residential license fee for the Program. 

(h) Defendants’ obtained the Program by illegal means and 

intentionally broadcast the Program by deception, and for 

financial gain. 

(Doc. 28-1 at 10–11). 

 These facts admitted by Defendants conclusively prove each of Plaintiff’s 

allegations in its Complaint and establish that Defendants unlawfully intercepted and 

profited from the illegal broadcasting of the Program at Crossroads Bar & Grill. Further, 

Plaintiff has established that it holds the proprietary rights to the intercepted Program. 

(Doc. 28-4 at 9–34). Accordingly, Defendants are liable under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 9 of 13
- 10 - 

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 

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages. Further, Defendants have not responded and 

have not established the existence of any disputed fact. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to 

summary judgment on its claim under § 605.5

 

Damages 

Under Title 47 of the United States Code Section 605, the Court may award 

statutory damages to the aggrieved party “for each violation [ . . . ] involved in the action 

in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47 

U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). The aggrieved party is the party holding any “proprietary 

rights in the intercepted communication.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). Section 605 also 

permits an additional award of enhanced damages where “the court finds that the 

violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial 

advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). The Court has 

discretion to award these enhanced damages in an amount of up to $100,000. Id. 

 Here, Plaintiff seeks a total award of damages in the amount of $30,000. (Doc. 28-

1 at 15). Specifically, Plaintiff requests $10,000 in statutory damages and $20,000 in 

enhanced statutory damages.6 Id. Plaintiff contends that an award of damages in these 

amounts would “satisfy the purposes of compensating Plaintiff and act[] as a deterrent 

 

5 The case of Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Donna Jean Chilleen, et al. is similar 

to the present case. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Chilleen, CV-13-08166-PCT-PGR, 

2015 WL 2342111, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 14, 2015). In that case, the defendants also 

failed to respond to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as the requests 

for admissions. Id. Accordingly, the Court stated, “[a]ll of the relevant facts necessary to establish the defendants’ liability under [47 U.S.C. §] 605 have been conclusively 

established as a result of [defendants’] failure to respond to the requests for admissions, 

including that they unlawfully intercepted the Program without the plaintiff's authorization and that they did so willfully and for financial gain.” Id. 

6 In the interest of completeness, the Court notes that there is a significant discrepancy between the amount of damages Plaintiff requested in its Amended 

Complaint and the amount Plaintiff requested in its Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Specifically, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint maintains that Plaintiff is entitled to 

statutory damages in the amount of $110,000 as to each Defendant as a result of 

Defendants’ violation of § 605, or statutory damages in the amount of $60,000 as a result 

of Defendants’ violation of § 553. (Doc. 10 at 8). However, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment only seeks a total award of statutory damages in the amount of $30,000 as a result of Defendants’ alleged violation of § 605. (Doc. 28-1 at 15). Plaintiff 

does not request damages as a result of Defendants’ alleged violation of § 553 in its 

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.). 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 10 of 13
- 11 - 

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 

against future acts of piracy by both these Defendants and others.” Id. 

Though there is no specific, established formula for calculating either statutory or 

enhanced damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, courts within this district commonly consider 

“factors such as the maximum capacity of the commercial establishment, the total 

number of patrons present at the time of the unauthorized showing, and the amount 

defendant would have paid if it had purchased the rights to show the broadcast” in 

awarding statutory damages. J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Vargas, CV-11-02229-

PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 1249206, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2013) (awarding $4,000 in 

statutory damages and $10,000 in enhanced damages where defendants acted willfully 

and illegally displayed a program to 125–130 patrons in an establishment with a capacity 

of 150). In awarding enhanced damages, courts may “consider ‘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.’” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. 

Pinkhasov, CV-11-02437-PHX-FJM, 2012 WL 3641451, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2012) 

(awarding $10,000 in statutory damages and $5,000 in enhanced damages where 

defendant charged a cover fee while illegally displaying a program in a business with a 

maximum capacity of 1,000 and where between 18–26 patrons were present) (quoting 

Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Guzman, CV-07-0963-PHX-PGR, 2008 WL 1924988, 

at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2008)) (awarding statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 and 

enhanced damages in the amount of $3,000 where 10 patrons were present and where 

defendant advertised the illegally shown program, but where there was no cover charge 

or allegations of prior infringement). 

Plaintiff is also correct that deterrence is one of the objectives considered in

awarding both statutory and enhanced damages in claims brought under 47 U.S.C. § 605. 

Pinkhasov, 2012 WL 3641451, at *1. (awarding statutory damages after considering “the 

goal of deterring cable piracy”); See also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Coen, CV-11-

2531-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 2919710, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2012) (holding that 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 11 of 13
- 12 - 

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 

“enhanced damages are desirable in many cases because of their tendency to deter future 

violations”). 

Here, Plaintiff’s investigator, Amanda Hidalgo, stated in her affidavit that 

Crossroads Bar & Grill has a maximum capacity of approximately 70 people and that 16 

individuals were present within the Bar during her investigation. (Doc. 28-2 at 2–3). 

Plaintiff’s investigator also indicated that she saw the Program playing on four of the six 

televisions within the establishment. Id. Although Plaintiff’s investigator does not 

mention that the program was advertised in any manner or whether patrons of Crossroads 

Bar & Grill had to pay a cover charge and/or premiums, Defendants have admitted that 

they advertised the program and charged a cover charge through their failure to respond 

to the requests for admissions. (Doc. 28-3 at 8–36). Further, Plaintiff has submitted 

evidence indicating that it would have cost Defendants $850.00 to legally exhibit the 

Program within Crossroads Bar & Grill by purchasing the sublicense fee from Plaintiff. 

(Doc. 28-4 at 3, 36). However, there is no specific evidence of a premium being charged 

for food or drinks. Additionally, Plaintiff indicates in its Brief in Support of its Motion 

for Summary Judgment that this is the third allegation of piracy it has made against 

Defendants, noting that two additional cases against Defendants are pending but have yet 

to be adjudicated. (Doc. 28-1 at 18). 

Based on the evidence presented, the Court concludes that a statutory damages 

award pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the amount of $3,000 is just. 

Further, because the evidence indicates that Defendants’ violation was willful and for 

purposes of both commercial and personal gain, the Court also awards an enhanced 

damages award pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) in the amount of $5,000. 

Costs and Attorneys’ Fees 

Plaintiff requests in its Complaint and in its Brief in Support of Motion for 

Summary Judgment that it be permitted to file its request for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(Doc. 28-1 at 20). Under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the Court “shall direct the recovery of full 

costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 12 of 13
- 13 - 

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 

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff is directed to comply with LRCiv 54.1 and LRCiv 

54.2 in applying for its costs and fees. See AZ R USDCT LRCiv 54.1–.2. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is 

GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded the sum 

of $8,000 from Defendants Lisa Marie Donaldson and Crossroads B & G Family Limited 

Partnership pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605.7

 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

for Plaintiff accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its request for attorney’s 

fees and costs in compliance with this Court’s Local Rules. 

 Dated this 15th day of June, 2016. 

 

7

 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also alleges claims under Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. See (Doc. 10 at 6–8). However, in moving for summary judgment (as opposed to partial summary judgment), Plaintiff failed to mention these claims under 

47 U.S.C. § 553. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff’s claims under 47 U.S.C. § 553 to be waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) advisory committee’s note to 2010 amendment (explaining “that summary judgment may be requested not only as to an entire case but 

also as to a claim, defense, or part of a claim or defense” and that ‘“partial summary judgment’ . . . describe[s] disposition of less than the whole action”); see generally 

Jenkins v. Cty of Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (observing that party “abandoned” two claims plead in complaint “by not raising them in opposition to the 

[defendant]’s motion for summary judgment”). 

Case 2:14-cv-02043-JAT Document 30 Filed 06/15/16 Page 13 of 13