UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:14-CV-169-TLS 

 ) 

WESLEY YEAKLE, individually and ) 

d/b/a Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill Inc., ) 

et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s Request for 

Damages Award [ECF No. 30], filed on February 10, 2017. The Defendants Wesley Yeakle and 

Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc. filed a Memorandum Regarding Damages [ECF No. 31] on 

March 17, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s Reply [ECF No. 32] was entered on March 30, 2017. The 

Plaintiff requests an award of $10,000 in statutory damages, for this Court to exercise its 

discretion to award enhanced damages, and to award $1,530.75 in attorney’s fees1

 and $1,085.00 

in costs. (Pl.’s Reply 8, ECF No. 32.) The Defendants argue that “[t]here are no facts in the 

record . . . which would support the Plaintiff’s request for maximum statutory damages, or any 

request for enhanced damages.” (Def.’s Mem. 1, ECF No. 31.) Instead, the Defendants urge the 

Court to issue minimum statutory damages of $1,000.00 against the corporate Defendant and no 

 1

 The Plaintiff initially requested $1,316.26 in attorney’s fees, but increased its request after 

“incurr[ing] additional attorney’s fees in preparing [its R]eply to Defendants’ Memorandum.” (Pl.’s 

Reply 7.) 
2 

damages as to Defendant Wesley Yeakle. (Id. at 2.) Lastly, the Defendants agree with the entry 

of the Plaintiff’s requested attorney’s fees2 and costs. 

BACKGROUND 

The facts underlying this case were detailed in this Court’s March 24, 2016, Opinion and 

Order [ECF No. 21], and so only a brief recitation is necessary. 

On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] alleging that it 

entered into sub-licensing agreements with various commercial establishments to 

permit public exhibition of the Pacquiao Program, and that the Defendants 

unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the Pacquiao Program without the Plaintiff’s 

authorization, in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605. 

(Op. & Order 2, ECF No. 21.) On August 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment [ECF No. 17] as to the Defendants’ liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605.3 The Plaintiff 

submitted evidence from an auditor who “assert[ed] that on June 9, 2012, at approximately 11:49 

PM, he entered Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill and observed the Pacquiao Program being 

displayed on three television monitors in the presence of 42 people.” (Id. at 5.) To contest 

liability, the Defendants submitted an Affidavit from Defendant Wesley Yeakle, in which he 

stated that “other than the bare assertions of [the auditor] . . . I have seen no evidence that the 

[Pacquiao] program was shown in my establishment on or about June 9, 2012.” (Yeakle Aff. ¶ 5, 

ECF No. 19-1.) However, because § 605 is a strict liability statute, the Defendants’ proffered 

evidence was only relevant to damages, and so the Court granted summary judgment in favor of 

the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016. The Court postponed ruling on damages, costs, and attorney’s 

fees pending additional briefing from the parties. 

 2

 The Defendants agreed to the Plaintiff’s initial amount requested for attorney’s fees, which was 

calculated before the Plaintiff prepared its Reply brief, but the Court assumes that the Defendants would 

agree to including the fees for preparing the Reply brief. 

3

 The Plaintiff did not pursue liability under § 553 in its Motion. (Op. & Order 2 n.2.) 
3 

ANALYSIS 

A. Damages Under § 605 

 Under § 605, the claimant “may elect actual damages or statutory damages.” The Plaintiff 

elects the latter. (See Pls.’ Req. Damages 3, ECF No. 30.) The statute states that “the party 

aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation . . . of this section 

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). In addition, the Plaintiff requests that this Court 

“utilize its discretion to make an award of enhanced damages that both sufficiently compensates 

Plaintiff and functions as an effective deterrent.” (Pls.’ Req. 3–4.) Under the statute, when a 

“court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect 

commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award 

of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each 

violation” of § 605. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). 

“It is well established that the district courts have broad discretion to determine awards in 

cases like this.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Navarro, — F. Supp. 3d —, at *6 (N.D. Ind. 2017) 

(first citing J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Turrubiartes, No. 1:11-CV-1496, 2013 WL 3878740, at 

*2 (S.D. Ind. July 26, 2013); then citing J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Elonia Garcia, Bly, Inc., No. 

1:13-CV-743, 2016 WL 4479516, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2016)). There are three main ways 

that courts calculate statutory and enhanced damages for violations of § 605. “Some courts have 

assessed statutory damages using as a yardstick the number of patrons in the establishment 

viewing the show,” while others “have awarded a flat sum for each violation.” E.g., id. (N.D. 

Ind. 2017) (quoting Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Scott E’s Pub., Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 955, 

959–61 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (listing cases)). Still more have calculated statutory damages under a 
4 

“licensing” method, based on “the amount [the violator] would have paid to acquire the rights 

. . . had [they] purchased those rights legitimately.” E.g., id. (citing J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. 

Sangria’s Mexican Grill 2 LLC, No. 15-C-656, 2015 WL 5824900, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 6, 

2015)). 

The Plaintiff argues that this Court should award maximum statutory damages of 

$10,000.00 “because it would be impossible to calculate the full extent of the profits lost by 

Plaintiff and the additional damages sustained” because of the Defendants’ conduct. (Pl.’s Req. 

2.) This amount would conform to Congress’s intent to deter piracy of closed-circuit 

programming, as such deterrence can only be achieved “by the imposition of the maximum 

statutory damage award.” (Pl.’s Reply 3.) By contrast, calculating damages on a per-patron basis 

“may do little to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.” (Id. at 6 (quoting Kingvision, 544 

F. Supp. 2d at 1184).) Also, requiring the violator “to pay the price it would have been charged 

to obtain legal authorization . . . does nothing to” fulfill congressional intent. (Id. at 7 (quoting 

Entm’t by J & J , Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769, 776 (S.D. Tex. 2002).) To 

support their argument that “statutory damages should be near the minimum range,” the 

Defendants rely upon the small “audience of 42 persons” who were at the bar and watched the 

program. 

There is no evidence that a cover charge was collected, or that the event was 

advertised by the bar. There is no evidence that Defendant Wesley Yeakle was 

present in the bar at the time of the unauthorized broadcast, or that he personally 

directed any intercept of the broadcast. . . . [There w]as no finding as to whether 

the Pacquiao Program was marketed or publicized by the Defendants in order to 

attract a crowd to the bar. 

(Def.’s Mem. 1–2.) However, the Defendants do not argue in favor of any one formula for this 

Court to employ in calculating statutory damages. 
5 

 But a formula is not the only variable in the statutory damages equation. As a fellow 

Judge within this District has explained, 

There is another important factor the Court must consider, and it is usually the 

most challenging aspect of cases like these. While defendants who “pirate” 

licensed broadcasts should be made to pay up, the Court is also charged with 

balancing equities; that is, with fashioning an award that compensates the Plaintiff 

without impairing the Defendants’ ability to continue operating their business. 

“[C]ourts also consider the deterrent effect of the award, with an eye toward 

imposing an award that is substantial enough to discourage future lawless 

conduct, but not so severe that it seriously impairs the viability of the defendant’s 

business (at least for a first offense).” . . . This factor becomes magnified when 

the defendants are small business owners, as is the case here, whose businesses 

could be crushed even by the imposition of what J & J Sports might consider a 

paltry amount. At the same time, the strict liability nature of the applicable 

statutes and their mandate that courts impose some amount of damages for 

violations presents a Solomon-like dilemma for the Court. 

Navarro, — F. Supp. 3d —, at *8. Based on the factual circumstances of this case, the Court 

grants the minimum allowable statutory damages award under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) of $1,000.00. 

“The Court concludes that this award will compensate J & J Sports while also serving a deterrent 

effect. A greater award is simply not supported by the evidence or circumstances of this case.” 

Id.

 Next, the Plaintiff requests that this Court exercise its discretion to award enhanced 

damages, while the Defendants argue that “[t]here are no facts in the record . . . which would 

support . . . any request for enhanced damages.” (Def.’s Mem. 1, ECF No. 31.) The Court agrees 

with the Defendants because there is no evidence upon which to find that the Defendants’ actions 

were “committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private 

financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). No cover charge was collected and there was no 

advertising or marketing campaign to show that the Pacquiao match would be played at the bar. 

In his Affidavit, Defendant Wesley Yeakle stated that had “no knowledge that Yeakle’s Sports 
6 

Bar showed the [Pacquiao] program” and therefore he neither authorized nor supervised the 

playing of the Pacquiao match. (Yeakle Aff. ¶ 6.)4 The Plaintiff’s argument in favor of enhanced 

damages is merely conclusory: “there is little chance that the Defendants did not act willfully in 

intercepting” the Pacquiao program because the Court already found that the Defendants violated 

§ 605. (Pl.’s Req. 3.) Such an argument is both conclusory and misreads the statute, as it would 

render superfluous the bifurcation of damages provisions within the statute by automatically 

qualifying any § 605 violation for enhanced damages. 

B. Attorney’s Fees and Costs 

 When the Court finds a violation of § 605, the prevailing party is entitled to “the recovery 

of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B). The 

Plaintiff requests $1,530.75 in attorney’s fees and $1,085.00 in costs, and the Defendants agree 

with the entry of the Plaintiff’s requested attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted 

an Affidavit [ECF No. 32-2] and Invoice [ECF No. 32-3] that detail the fees and costs incurred 

in the course of the litigation, which the Court has reviewed. The Court finds that the request for 

fees and costs is reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and awards the Plaintiff the 

sum of $1,530.75 in attorney’s fees and $1,085.00 in costs. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Request for Damages [ECF 

No. 30]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor the Plaintiff and against the 

 4

 Indeed, the Court’s grant of summary judgment did not find that any one individual had 

masterminded the piracy of the Pacquiao broadcast, only that the evidence showed that on the night of the 

Pacquiao fight the Defendants did not possess a license to show the fight in the establishment. 
7 

Defendants in an amount of $1,000 in statutory damages and no enhanced damages, and to 

award Plaintiff’s counsel $1,530.75 in attorney’s fees and $1,085.00 in costs. 

 SO ORDERED on May 11, 2017. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT