Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02501/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02501-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Plaintiff
Joseph Raymond Olivera
Defendant
Stooges of Stockton
Defendant
Stooges, LLC
Defendant
The Stooges
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2501 FCD DAD

v.

JOSEPH RAYMOND OLIVERA, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Individually and d/b/a STOOGES OF

STOCKTON, and d/b/a THE STOOGES;

and STOOGES, LLC, an unknown business

entity d/b/a STOOGES OF STOCKTON,

and d/b/a THE STOOGES.

Defendants.

 /

This matter came before the court on January 15, 2010, for hearing of plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment against defendant Joseph Raymond Olivera, individually and doing

business as Stooges of Stockton, and Stooges, LLC. (Doc. No. 9). Thomas P. Riley appeared

telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. No appearance was made by or on behalf of defendants at

the hearing. 

Plaintiff’s counsel indicated at the hearing that he had no contact with defendants

since the filing of the action. The court’s docket reflects that defendants have not filed any

motion for relief from the Clerk’s Entry of Default on November 20, 2009, nor any opposition to

plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment despite being served with both. Upon hearing

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 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

2

argument, the court took plaintiff’s motion under submission. 

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 

motion be granted and that default judgment be entered against defendants.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. is an international distributor of sports and

entertainment programming. Defendant Olivera operates at least two commercial establishment

called “Stooges of Stockton d/b/a The Stooges,” one located at 8118 Est Lane, Suite 125 in

Stockton, California and the other at 105 W. Pine Street in Lodi, California. By contract,

plaintiff was granted the proprietary rights to distribute via closed-circuit television the “Ultimate

Fighting Championship 76: ‘Knockout’” event (the “Program”) which was telecast nationwide

on Saturday, September 22, 2007. Defendants intercepted and exhibited the program in the 

commercial establishments referred to above without authorization to do so.

The record reflects that service of process was effected on defendants Olivera and

Stooges, LLC on October 15, 2009, by personal service. (Doc. Nos. 5 and 6.) After defendants

failed to file an answer, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default on November 17, 2009. (Doc.

No. 7.) The Clerk entered default against the defendants on November 20, 2009. (Doc. No. 8.) 

On December 11, 2009, plaintiff filed its motion for default judgment with a proof of service

reflecting service of the motion on defendants.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs applications to the court for

entry of default judgment. Upon entry of default, the complaint’s factual allegations regarding

liability are taken as true, while allegations regarding the amount of damages must be proven. 

Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983)

(citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944); Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th

Cir. 1977)); see also DirectTV v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2007); TeleVideo Sys., Inc.

v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Where damages are liquidated, i.e., capable of ascertainment from definite figures

contained in documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits, judgment by default may be entered

without a damages hearing. Dundee, 722 F.2d at 1323. Unliquidated and punitive damages,

however, require “proving up” at an evidentiary hearing or through other means. Dundee, 722

F.2d at 1323-24; see also James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1993).

Granting or denying default judgment is within the court’s sound discretion. 

Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d. 1089,

1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The court is free to consider a variety of factors in exercising its discretion. 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Among the factors that may be

considered by the court are

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint,

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due

to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26).

ANALYSIS

I. Whether Default Judgment Should Be Entered

The factual allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, taken as true pursuant to the entry

of default against defendants Olivera (individually and d/b/a/ Stooges of Stockton) and Stooges,

LLC, establish the following circumstances: (1) defendant Olivera is the owner, operator,

licensee, permitee, person in charge, or person with control over the commercial establishments

doing business as Stooges of Stockton in Stockton and Lodi, California; (2) by contract, plaintiff

was granted the exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights to distribute via closedcircuit television the “Ultimate Fighting Championship 76: ‘Knockout’” event which was

telecast nationwide on Saturday, September 22, 2007; (3) pursuant to the contract, plaintiff

entered into sublicensing agreements with various commercial entities throughout North America

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 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

 Although not entirely clear, it appears that the Program in question was a cable 1

television broadcast and not a satellite television broadcast. Therefore, only 47 U.S.C. § 553

(Count Two) would be implicated and not 42 U.S.C. § 605 (Count One). See J & J Sports

Productions, Inc. v. Manzano, NO. C 08-01872 RMW, 2008 WL 4542962, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

29, 2008) (“A signal pirate violates section 553 if he intercepts a cable signal, he violates section

605 if he intercepts a satellite broadcast. But he cannot violate both by a single act of

interception.”) Accordingly, the court will not include the §605 cause of action in recommending

entry of default judgment. In this regard, many courts have held that a defendant cannot be held

liable under both 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605(a). J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ro, No. C 09-

02860 WHA, 2010 WL 668065, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010); J & J Sports Productions, Inc.

v. Prado, No. 2:07-cv-02104 GEB DAD, 2008 WL 822159, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008);

Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd., v. Williams, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1481, 1484 (S.D. Ga. 1998). In any

event, the overwhelming majority of courts have concluded that where, as here, the defendants

have defaulted damages are to be awarded only under one or the other provision. Kingvision Pay

Per View, Ltd., v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1197, n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (and cases cited

therein); see also J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Betancourt, No. 08cv937 JLS (POR), 2009

WL 3416431, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009). 

4

by which it granted those entities limited sublicensing rights to exhibit the Program to their

patrons within their establishments; (4) as a commercial distributor of sporting events, plaintiff

expended substantial monies marketing, advertising, promoting, administering, and transmitting

the program to its customers; (5) with full knowledge that the program was not to be intercepted,

received, and exhibited by unauthorized entities, defendants exhibited the program at the time of

its transmission and did so willfully and for purposes of commercial or private gain at both

locations; (6) defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 553, et seq., which prohibits the unauthorized

interception, exhibition, publication, and divulgence of programs; (7) by reason of defendant’s

1

violation of § 553, plaintiff has a private right of action; (8) defendant also tortiously obtained

possession of plaintiff’s program and wrongfully converted it to defendants’ own use and benefit;

(9) by reason of defendants’ tortious conversion, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and

punitive damages; (10) the interception and exhibition of the Program violated California

Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and (11) by reason of defendants’ violation of the

Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., plaintiff is entitled to such remedies as restitution,

disgorgement, and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 1 at 3-8.)

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 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

5

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for the willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553 as

alleged in Count Two and for recovery of all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs of

suit for defendant’s tortious conversion of the Program as alleged in Count Three. (Id. at 7.) 

Finally, plaintiff seeks restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs of

suit for defendant’s violation of the California Business & Professions Code as alleged in Count

Four . (Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff’s complaint and summons were served upon defendants Olivera and

Stooges, LLC on October 15, 2009, by personal service. (Doc. Nos. 5 and 6.) The undersigned

finds that the defendants were properly served with the complaint and that the Clerk properly

entered the default of the defendant on November 20, 2009. (Doc. No. 8.) Defendants Olivera

and Stooges, LLC were also served with plaintiff’s request for entry of default and application

for default judgment by the court. (Doc. Nos. 7 and 9.) Despite being served with process and

all papers filed in connection with plaintiff’s request for entry of default and motion for default

judgment, defendants have failed to respond to plaintiff’s complaint, request for entry of default,

or motion for default judgment. Nor did the defendants appear at the hearing on plaintiff’s

motion. 

After weighing the Eitel factors, the undersigned finds that the material

allegations of the complaint for the most part support plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff will be

prejudiced if default judgment is denied because plaintiff has no other recourse for recovery of

the damages suffered due to the defendants’ failure to pay for the right to exhibit the Program.

In light of the entry of default against the defendants, there is no apparent

possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts underlying the action. Nor is there any

indication that the defendants’ default resulted from excusable neglect, as defendants were

properly served with plaintiff’s pleading as well as with plaintiff’s request for entry of default

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 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

6

and motion for default judgment. Defendants have had ample notice of plaintiff’s intent to

pursue a default judgment against them.

Although public policy generally favors the resolution of a case on its merits, the

defendants’ failure to make a proper appearance and defend against plaintiff’s claims has made a

decision on the merits impossible in this case. Because most of the Eitel factors weigh in

plaintiff’s favor, the undersigned, while recognizing the public policy favoring decisions on the

merits, will recommend that default judgment be entered against the defaulted defendants.

II. Terms of Judgment to Be Entered

After determining that entry of default judgment is warranted, the court must next

determine the terms of the judgment. Upon consideration of all of plaintiff’s briefing, the

undersigned will recommend that damages be awarded but not in the amount requested.

By its motion for default judgment, plaintiff seeks a judgment in the total amount

of $110,875. That sum consists of $110,000 for the violation of Title 47 and $875 for the tort of

conversion. (Doc. No. 9.) The undersigned is mindful that the defendants were served with

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and were thereby placed on notice of the amount sought

by plaintiff. However, granting or denying default judgment is within the court’s sound

discretion, and one of the factors the court is free to consider in exercising its discretion is the

sum of money at stake. See J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Betancourt, No. 08cv937 JLS

(POR), 2009 WL 3416431, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009). 

The Cable and Television Consumer Protection Act provides that a plaintiff may

elect to seek either actual or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(i) and (ii). Here,

plaintiff appears to seek enhanced statutory damages. Statutory damages for each violation of the

Act may be awarded at a minimum of $250 and a maximum of 10,000, as the court considers

just. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). A maximum enhanced damages award of up to $50,000 is

available only where the court finds the violation to have been committed willfully and for the

purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B). Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 6 of 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

 Unfortunately, plaintiff’s argument regarding the amount of statutory damages that 2

should be awarded in this case is focused on the cause of action under 47 U.S.C. § 605. The

request for statutory damages in excess of the maximum amount allowed under § 553 appears to

be based on this same error.

7

argues that the amount requested in damages is justified here primarily because of the need to

deter broadcast piracy in light of the harm done to plaintiff’s business as a result of such

activities. The court finds plaintiff’s damages argument not completely persuasive in light of the 2

record before the court.

In this case, plaintiff’s investigator has declared that during the Program broadcast

in question, he estimated the number of patrons inside the Lodi establishment at forty. The

investigator reported that there was no cover charge for entry to the Lodi location on the night in

question. There is no evidence before the court of any promotion by defendants that the Program

would be shown at the Lodi establishment. There is also no evidence before the court that a

special premium on food and drink was being charged at the establishment on the night of the

event. The investigator stated that the establishment had one fifteen inch television, one nineteen

inch television and one thirty-six inch television displaying the event at the Lodi location. 

Plaintiff has presented no evidence to the court suggesting that the defendants are repeat

broadcast piracy offenders based upon previous or subsequent pirating. Finally, there is also no

evidence before the court suggesting that defendant Olivera is no longer operating Stooges of

Stockton.

At the Stockton location of Stooges that same night, plaintiff’s investigator

reported observing only ten patrons in the establishment while the program was being shown. 

The investigator reported that there was no cover charge for entry to the Stockton location. There

is no evidence before the court of any promotion by defendants that the Program would be shown

at the establishment. There is also no evidence before the court that a special premium on food

and drink was being charged at the establishment on the night of the event. The investigator

stated that the establishment had only a single twenty-seven inch television displaying the event

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 7 of 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

8

at the Stockton location. As noted above, plaintiff has presented no evidence to the court

suggesting that the defendants are repeat broadcast piracy offenders based upon previous or

subsequent pirating. Finally, there is also no evidence before the court suggesting that defendant

Olivera is no longer operating Stooges of Stockton.

In light of this record, and taking into consideration that defendants were

displaying the pirated broadcast at two locations on the night in question to a total of

approximately fifty patrons, the court will recommend that judgment be entered against the

defaulted defendants and that plaintiff be awarded $7,500 in non-enhanced statutory damages

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). See J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Cardoze, NO. C

09-05683 WHA, 2010 WL 2757106, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2010) (awarding statutory

damages of $1,000 and $250 in enhanced damages for a § 553 violation involving a repeat

offender in a default judgment); J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Hernandez, No. 2:09cv3389

GEB KJN, 2010 WL 1980186, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2010) (awarding the maximum $10,000

in non-enhanced statutory damages under both § 553 and § 605); J & J Sports Productions, Inc.

v. Manzano, NO. C 08-01872 RMW, 2008 WL 4542962, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008) (in a

default judgment awarding the minimum statutory damages of $250 due to evidence that the

defendant no longer operated the establishment and therefore a larger award would have little

deterrent effect) 

In his declaration in support of the motion for default judgment, counsel indicates

that plaintiff also seeks the award of $875 in damages for the state law tort of conversion,

representing the amount defendants would have paid plaintiff to show the Program lawfully

according to the rate card for the event. Plaintiff is entitled to such an award. See J & J Sports

Productions, Inc. v. Ro, No. C 09-02860 WHA, 2010 WL 668065, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19,

2010); J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Montecinos, No. C 09-02604 JSW, 2010 WL 144817, at

*7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); but see J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ferreyra, No. C 08-128

LKK KJM, 2008 WL 4104315, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008) (“Inasmuch as plaintiff seeks

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 8 of 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

9

statutory damages rather than actual damages, plaintiff’s request for damages for conversion

should be denied.”). Therefore, the court will also will recommend that plaintiff be awarded

$875 in damages with respect to the tort of conversion. 

Finally, although the prayer for relief in the complaint as well as the motion for

default judgment indicates that plaintiff seeks the award of costs and attorney fees, the motion for

default judgment does not contain any argument in support of such a request. Moreover, no

evidence of costs or attorney fees incurred was submitted to the court in connection with the

pending motion. Accordingly, the court will not recommend the award of costs and attorneys

fees.

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 11, 2009 motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 9)

against defendants Olivera individually and doing business as Stooges of Stockton and Stooges,

LLC be granted;

2. Judgment be entered against the defendants in the sum of $8,375 consisting of

$7,500 in statutory damages for violating 47 U.S.C. § 553 and $875 in damages for the tort of

conversion; and

3. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

twenty-one (21) days after these findings and recommendations are filed, any party may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 9 of 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

10

file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 21, 2010.

DAD:

Ddad1\orders.civil\joehand2501.oah.11510.mdj

Case 2:09-cv-02501-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 07/22/10 Page 10 of 10