N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pla intiff - Appe lle e , v. HODSON B R OADC A STING; R IC HAR D DEAN HODSON, sole proprie tor of Hodson B roa d c a sting, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 14-17023

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-332-APG-GW F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2016 * * Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
N OV 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).
*** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.R ic ha rd H o dson, a s ole proprie tor doing busine ss a s Hodson B roa dc a sting, ope ra t e d a ra dio sta

tion without a

uthority , in viola

tion o f 4 7 U .S.C
. § 3 01. The Fe de ra l C om m unic a tions C om

m ission im

pose d a $20,000 forfe iture an d r e fe rre d the m a tte r to t he U.S. Attorne y , who sue d in distric t c ourt t o re c ove r the m one y . Hodson a ppe a ls from a gra nt of su m m ary judgm e nt for the Unite d Sta te s, c ha lle n ging both lia bility
a nd the a m ou n t o f t h e forfe iture , a s we ll a s t he de nia l of le a ve to file a n a m e nde d
c ounte rc la im
. W e re vie w d e novo the FC C ’ s de te rm ina tion tha t Hodson is lia ble . 47 U.S.C
. § 504(a ). Becau se Hodson ha s a ppe a re d pro se throughout this litiga tion, we
c onstrue his a rgum e nts libe ra lly , Thomas v . Ponde r , 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th C ir. 2010), but he m

ust still “ c om

ply stric tly with t

he s um m a ry judgm e nt rule s,” i d. (c iting Bias v . Moy nihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th C ir. 2007)).
W e obse rve a t t

he thre shold tha t the notic e s of a ppa re nt lia bility , the forfe iture orde r, a nd the U.S. A ttorne y ’ s c om pla int ne gle c t e d to c ite 47 U.S.C
. § 301 a s the ba sis for forfe iture
. I ns t ead , the y c ite d 47 C .F.R
. § 7 3.1620, whic h doe s not c re a te a ny
e nforc e a ble duty
. The e rrone ous c ita tion w as n o t ra ise d be l ow, nor is it ra ise d o n
a ppe a l. M ore o ve r, this a c t ion wa s prose c u t e d a s a c a se of una uthoriz e d tra nsm ission. Sinc e the is s u e w as t rie d by the pa rtie s’ im plie d c onse nt, the fa ilure to c i te § 301 in the c om pla int m a y be ex cu s ed unde r Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 15(b)(2). And a lthough the C om m unic a tions Ac t re quire s tha t e a c h notic e of a ppa re nt lia bility ide ntify the le ga l 2c om

m a n d the de fe nda

nt viola te d, 47 U.S.C . § 503(b)(4), “ te c h nic a l fla ws in a notic e
c a n be c ure d if the a c tua l c onduc t of the a dm inistra tive proc e e d in g s p r o v i de s notic e to the pa rtic ipa nts of tha t whic h is unde r c onside ra tion,” N at’l St eel & Shipbuilding C o. v . Dire c t or, O.W

.C .P. , 616 F.2d 420, 421 (9th C i r. 1980) (pe r c uria m ). 1. Title 47 U.S.C
. § 3 01 ba n s a ll tra nsm ission of “ e n e rgy or c o m m unic a tions
or signa l s by ra dio” unle s s a uthoriz e d unde r the C om

m unic a tions Ac t. Se c tion 503 of the sa m e title a

uthoriz e s m o ne t a ry forfe iture s for “ willful[] or r ep eat ed[] ” viola tions of § 301, w hic h the FC C m a y im pose a fte r following c e rta in p roced u r es . Se e 4 7 U.S.C
. § 503(b)(1)(B ), (b)(4). T he U.S. Atto rne y ha s produc e d substa n tia l e vide nc e tha t , for m ore than a y e a r, Hodson willfully a n d re pe a te dly tra nsm itte d ra dio signa ls from a diffe re nt loc a tion a nd a t diffe re nt te c hnic a l pa ra m e te rs tha

n those spe c ifie d in his c onstruc tion pe rm it. Eve n ta king his subm issions i n t he m ost g e ner o u s light, Hodson ha s not shown a ge n u i n e i ssue of m a te ria l fa c t for tria l. None of his subm issions c ontra dic t a

ny of the fa c ts m a te ria l to a

§ 301 viola

tion. Hodson’ s othe r c ha lle nge s to sum m a ry judg m e nt a re sim i la rly m e ritle ss. Hodson ha d no a

uthority t o t r an s m it a s he did. B e c a use his c o nstruc tion pe rm i t
c onta ine d a spe c ia l c ondition re quiring FC C a pprova l be fore progra m t e sting— whic h
wa s ne ve r gra nte d— Hodson’ s tra nsm is si on s c ould not ha ve b e e n va lid unde r 4 7

3C .F.R
. § 73.1620. A nd be c a u se he tra nsm itte d a t va

ria nce f r o m t h e te rm s of his pe rm it, he c ould not ha ve be e n c onduc ting a va lid e quipm e nt te st, whic h only a llows tra nsm ission to a ssure c om plia n c e with those

te rm s. 47 C
. F.R . § 73.1610.
Nor wa s sum

m a ry judgm e nt im

pr o p er in the se c irc um sta nc e s b e c a use the C om m unic a tions Ac t re quire s a “ tria l de novo.” Se e 47 U.S.C
. § 504(a ). W e ha ve he ld
a s m uc h with re spe c t t o a n ide n tic a l re quire m e nt in a nothe r sta tute , Mahroom v . Hook

, 563 F.2d 1369, 1376–77 (9th C ir. 1977) (re spe c ting 4 2 U .S.C
. § 2 0 00e -16), a s ha s
e ve ry c i rc uit t o c onside r the s a m e que stion in othe r c onte x ts, se e , e. g. , F reedman v . U.S. De p’t of Agric

. , 926 F.2d 2 52, 261 (3d C ir. 1 991) (re spe c ting 7 U.S.C
. § 2023).
Ne ithe r ha s Hodson m a de out a d ue proc e s s viola

tion. The inte r na l FC C
e xhibits he did not ha ve a c c e ss to c ould not ha v e b e e n a b a sis for sum m a ry judgm e nt be c a use t h e U.S. Attorne y ne ve r provide d the m t o the d istric t judge , a n d Hodson—

who now ha s a c c e ss to the e xhibits— ha s not ide ntifie d a ny m at eria l tha t
c ould ha ve pre c lude d sum m a ry judgm e nt i f he ha d offe re d it. T h e de nia l o f disc ove ry in a c ivil c a se doe s not r eq u ire re ve rsa l unle ss the re is “ a c tua l a nd substa ntia l pre j udic e .” H

alle tt v . M

organ , 296 F
. 3 d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tions a n d inte rna l quota

tion m a rks o m itte d). And o f co u r se , the distric t j udge “ wa s within its

4disc re tion to dispe nse w ith ora l a rgum e n t” on sum m a ry judgm e n t. C

arpinte ria Valle

y Farms, Ltd. v . C

ty . of Santa Barbara , 344 F.3d 822, 832 n.6 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. Hod s o n al s o c h a lle nge s t he a m o unt of the forfe iture
. The de t e rm i na tion of the a m ount of a forfe iture is c om m itte d to the disc re tion of the FC C
. Se e 4 7 U.S.C
. § 503(b)(2)(E). R e vie w of a forfe iture a m ount is lim ite d to w he the r it re fle c ts a
re a s ona ble a pplic a tion of the s ta tute a nd the “ a djustm e nt c rite ria ” se t out i n § 1.80(II) of the FC C ’ s rule s. S

e e Grid Radio v . FC C , 278 F.3d 1314, 1322–23 (D.C
. C ir. 2002). He re , the ba se forfe iture a m o u nt for e a c h of Hodson’ s two insta nc e s of “ [c ] onstruc tion
a nd/or ope ra tion without a n instrum e nt of authoriz a tion for the se rvic e ” is $10,000. The FC C note d som e m a te ria l supporting Hodson’ s c l a im e d ina b ility t o pa

y
— the only downwa rd c ri te ria he a rgue d—

but a l so found tha t a ny c onse que nt re duc tion wa s offse t by m

ultiple u pwa rd a djustm e n ts for i n t en tiona l a nd re pe a te d viola t ions. The FC C ’ s de c ision not to a djust downwa rd w a s re a sona

ble a nd not a n a

buse of disc re tion. 3. De ny ing le a ve to a m e nd a c om pla int i s prope r wh en am e ndm e nt would be futile
. N ov ak v . U

nite d State

s , 795 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9t h Ci r . 2 0 1 5). H odson’ s Am e nde d C ounter -C om

pla int propose d two c la im s for da m a ge s unde r the Fe de ra l Tort C la im s Ac t
. Th e distric t c o urt prope rly found tha t both we re futile
. T he FTC A doe s not c re a te a right of a c tion, it only wa ive s the Unite d Sta te s’ sove re ign im m unity

5for c o nduc t a c tiona ble unde r sta

te tort la w. S e e J ac he tta v . U

nite d State

s , 653 F.3d 898, 904 (9th C ir. 2011). Hodson d oe s n ot a sse rt a ny sta te -la w c la im , a nd wha t he doe s a sse rt— e sse ntia l ly tha t the FC C fa ile d t o c a rry out i ts a dm i nistra tive d utie s unde r fe de ra l la w— is “ not a c tiona

b l e unde r the FTC A be c a use a n y lia

bility w o ul d arise unde r fe de ra l ra the r tha

n sta te la w.” Id.
AFFIRM E D.

6