UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-93-JEM

)

ROBERT J. MATIJEVICH, individually )

and d/b/a L.F. NORTONS, and UDL, LLC, )

d/b/a L.F. NORTONS. )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Submission of Damages and Attorney Fees

[DE 31], filed by Defendants on April 4, 2017, and on Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Damages

Memorandum [DE 33], filed by Plaintiff on April 17, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, the Court ordered that judgment be entered on Plaintiff’s behalf on its

47 U.S.C. § 605 Cable Act claim against Defendant UDL, LLC. The Court also ordered that

judgment be entered in Defendant Robert Matijevich’s favor on all Plaintiff’s claims against him

and in Defendant UDL, LLC’s favor on Plaintiff’s 47 U.S.C. § 553 claim against it. The Court

ordered the parties to brief the issue of what damages and fees are appropriate in this case. 

I. Defendants’ Fees

Because the Court granted summary judgment in his favor on all Plaintiff’s claims,

Defendant Matijevich argues that he is entitled to $10,625.00 in attorney fees “pursuant to the

statutes that allow for the prevailing party to be granted damages and attorney fees.” Defendant

UDL, who was represented by the same counsel as Defendant Matijevich, argues that the requested

amount of $10,625.00 covers its fees for prevailing on Plaintiff’s § 553 claim, as well. 
Under the two Cable Act claims Plaintiff pursued, however, neither Defendant is entitled to

fees. Those sections authorize fees to be paid only to “an aggrieved party who prevails” in a civil

suit. 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C); 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Consequently, the Cable Act fee

statute is not a two-way street. Defendants pointed to no other authority authorizing an award of fees

in their favor, and so the Court does not award them any fees. 

II. Plaintiff’s Fees & Damages

Plaintiff, on the other hand, was an aggrieved party that prevailed in its civil suit under the

Cable Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiffs represent that they incurred $2,635.50 in

attorney fees and $520 in costs. Defendants do not challenge these amounts, and the Court finds

them to be appropriate.

Section 605 of the Cable Act also authorizes the Court to award damages “computed, at the

election of the aggrieved party” by either actual damages and profits or statutory damages from

$1,000 to $10,000. 47 U.S.C. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C). Plaintiff elected to request the maximum

statutory damages in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiff argues that the Court should award the highest

statutory amount of damages to deter future violations.

While Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s damages arguments, the Cable Act leaves

to the discretion of the Court to determine an appropriate damages award based on the facts of the

individual case. See 47 U.S.C.§ 605(e)(3)(c)(II) (“[T]he aggrieved party may recover . . . a sum of

not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.”) (emphasis added). It is

Plaintiff’s burden to “provide justification for why damages in excess of the [$1,000] minimum

should be awarded.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 112, 1131-32 (M.D. Ala. 2004). In

determining a just award, courts consider various factors, including whether the defendant profited

2
from the violation, whether the defendant assisted or induced others in the violation, whether the

violation was willful or flagrant, whether the damage award will be sufficient to deter similar

conduct, and whether the damage award is comparable to awards in similar cases. Id. at 1331

(collecting cases). While courts acknowledge that “merely requiring [Defendant] to pay the price

it would have been charged to obtain legal authorization to display the Event does nothing to

accomplish [the] objective” of the Cable Act, courts routinely consider the would-be licensing fee

in arriving at an appropriate damages award. Entm’t by J & J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., Inc., 219 F.

Supp. 2d 769, 776 (S.D. Tex. 2002).

In this case, Plaintiff has not sufficiently justified an award of $10,000. The affidavit attached

to Plaintiff’s damages submission states that the licensing fee for the at-issue program would have

been, at most, $950.00. Awarding Plaintiff over ten times that amount does not appear to be

appropriate. See Id. (awarding $5,000 when the licensing fee was $1,500). Instead, “maximum

statutory damages [in Cable Act cases] should be reserved for cases where there is evidence of more

substantial injury to the plaintiff or profit by the defendants.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v.

Jasper Grocery, 152 F. Supp. 2d 438, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 

Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $3,000 in damages. This figure equals over three

times the licensing fee that Plaintiff would have charged Defendant UDL, which should sufficiently

deter future piracy. However, this figure also takes into consideration the somewhat strange facts

of this case. A bar patron brought his own cable box into Defendant UDL’s bar and asked the bar

staff to plug in the box to show the fight. As the Court previously determined, Defendant UDL is,

of course, liable for this conduct. However, this case does not represent a flagrant violation, and it

does not appear that Defendant UDL profited significantly from the violation. Furthermore, Plaintiff

3
did not suffer a substantial injury, and will be adequately compensated with the $3,000 award and

attorney fees. See Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1131.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to AMEND the

judgment in this case to include $3,000 in damages, $2,632.50 in attorney fees, and $520 in costs

in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant UDL, LLC, only. 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2017.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

4