IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., : 

 : Case No. 2:12-CV-214 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : 

RPM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC., : Magistrate Judge E. P. Deavers 

et al. : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

OPINION & ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 16). 

Plaintiff is a distributor of sports and entertainment programming. Defendant RPM Management 

Company, LLC. (“RPM”) is an alter ego Ozone Sports Bar, located in Worthington, Ohio. 

Defendant Lokar is also an alter ego of Ozone Sports Bar. On March 13, 2010, without 

Plaintiff’s permission, Defendants exhibited a boxing match to which Plaintiff retained the 

commercial exhibition license. Defendants intercepted the transmission of the boxing match, 

though Plaintiff adduces no evidence to allow the Court to determine whether Defendants 

intercepted the satellite signal or a line cable. Plaintiff’s affidavits and exhibits demonstrate that 

Defendants intercepted and exhibited the program “willfully and for purposes of direct or 

indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 

 Plaintiff filed Complaint against Defendants in this Court on March 12, 2012. (Dkt. 1) 

Complaint sought to recover under both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. Defendant 

RPM’s Summons was executed on March 28, 2012. (Dkt. 6) Defendant Mark Lokar’s 

Summons was subsequently executed on May 29, 2012. (Dkt. 13) As of this date, Defendants 

have not responded, nor entered any appearance before this Court in connection with this matter. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00214-ALM-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

The time to respond has long since elapsed, as the deadline for Defendants’ initial answer was 

April 2, 2012. 

 On June 14, 2012, the Clerk entered default against Defendants (Dkt. 15). Plaintiff then 

moved for default judgment under Rule 55(b). Plaintiff adduced uncontested evidence of the 

Defendants’ violation. The nature of the offense, intercepting a pay-per-view program and 

exhibiting it to the public, creates numerous uncertainties which frustrate attempts to calculate 

actual damages. For that reason, both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 allow the aggrieved 

party to elect a statutory damages remedy, which Plaintiff has elected. The sole question is 

whether Plaintiff, as it contends, should be awarded damages under both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 

U.S.C. § 553. 

 This Court has already decided that question in another case against Defendant RPM. In 

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. RPM Management Co., LLC., 2:09-CV-553, 2011 WL 1043560 

(S.D. Ohio Mar. 18, 2011), the Court held that “[w]hen a defendant is liable under both 47 

U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, [] the plaintiff may recover under only one section.” In that 

case, as in the instant case, the evidence did not allow the court to determine “whether 

[d]efendant appropriated [p]laintiff’s signal through a satellite device or a cable service.” Id. 

This case is indistinguishable, so it is appropriate to “impose the lesser statutory violation 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Id. 

 In Joe Hand Promotions this Court declined to impose damages up to the statutory limit. 

Since Defendants have engaged in the same tortious conduct yet again, and this time failed to 

enter any appearance before the Court, it is clear that the penalty previously imposed was 

insufficient to deter Defendants’ conduct. Thus, the Court awards Plaintiff the statutory 

maximum of $10,000.00 per violation for the one violation alleged. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00214-ALM-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

47 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A)(ii). Additionally, the Court awards Plaintiff maximum enhanced 

damages of $50,000.00 in view of the uncontroverted evidence that the violation was committed 

“willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 

47 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B). The Court also awards Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees 

of $1,650.00. 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is, hereby, 

GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that judgment be entered against Defendants RPM and Mark 

Lokar in the total amount of $61,650.00. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Court Judge 

DATED: March 4, 2013 

Case: 2:12-cv-00214-ALM-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>