1. Respondeat Superior

GCB argues that Antenas Enterprises is liable for Luis Garcia’s
actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Dominguez asserts
that Garcia was an independent contractor and therefore, Antenas
Enterprises cannot be vicariously liable for his actions.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable
for injuries to third persons resulting from acts by an employee
which, although not directly authorized or ratified by the employer,
are incidental to the class of acts which the employee is hired to
perform, and which are within the scope of his employment. Where
these conditions exist, the law imputes to the employer the acts of
the employee. See Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Subscription Plus,
Inc., 299 F.3d 618, 621-22 (7th Cir. 2002). An employee is acting
within the scope of his employment when he acts, at least in part, to
further the interest of his employer. Id. at 722 (citations
omitted). If Antenas Enterprises had the right to control the manner
and method in which Garcia performed his work, than an agency
relationship existed and Antenas Enterprises can be held liable
under respondeat superior. Hinkle Engineering, Inc. v. 175 Jackson
L.L.C., No. 01 C 5078, 2002 WL 31248492, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3,
2002).

Antenas Enterprises was hired to install a satellite system,
complete a work order, and transmit the appropriate information to
DISH Network. Garcia entered Mundelein Burrito as a representative
of Antenas Enterprises in order to complete these tasks. His work

-5-



sanction imposed. Id. The Court finds that twice the amount of
actual damages is reasonable for this case. Fallaci v. New Gazette
Literary Corp., 568 F. Supp. 1172, (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (appropriate
amount was double the fair market value of the license rights).
Therefore, Antenas Enterprises is liable to GCB for the sum of
$7,360.00. Pursuant to the Act, GCB is also entitled to reasonable
attorneys’ fees. Counsel shall submit its fee petition no later than
June 28, 2006.
1. Luis Dominguez is Liable Individually

GCB argues Luis Dominguez is personally liable for Antenas
Enterprises’ violation of § 605 of the Act. The term “person” in the
Act means an “individual, partnership, association, joint stock
company, trust, corporation or governmental entity.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 522(15) (emphasis added); see also Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v.
Myths, Inc., No. 99 C 7718, 2001 WL 218909, at *2 (N.D. Ill. March 5,
2001) (individuals may be personally liable under the Act).

Antenas Enterprises is a sole proprietorship, owned by
Dominguez. A sole proprietor is personally responsible for actions
committed by his employees within the scope of their employment. See
Vernon v. Schuster, 688 N.E.2d 1172, 1176-77(I11l. 1997) (“[S]lole
proprietorship has no legal identity separate from that of the
individual who owns it.”); Regency Financial Corp. v. Meziere, No. 90
C 428, 1990 WL 103247, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 1990); Plumbers’

Pension Fund, Local 130 v. Wright, No. 86 C 1485, 1987 WL 10577, at

- 10-



strip mall. GCB argues that the signage, structure and location of
Mundelein Burrito made it impossible to confuse with a residence.

GCB cites National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc.
d.b.a. Melody Lane Lounge, 253 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2001). In
Elidadis, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on similar facts. Id. at 918. National Satellite
Sports, Inc. (“NSS”) was the exclusive distributor of a prizefight to
commercial establishments in Ohio. Id. at 904. Time Warner
Entertainment Company (“Time Warner”) improperly listed a commercial
establishment as a residence, thereby allowing access to the fight
without payment to NSS. Id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment stating that an intermediary of a
communication violates § 605(a) when “it divulges that communication
through an electronic channel to one ‘other than the addressee
intended by the sender.” Id. at 916. Because Time Warner was not
authorized to transmit the event to commercial establishments, it was
liable for the incorrect listing. Id.

GCB also cites Tfhat’s Entertainment, Inc. v. J.P.T., Inc. v.
J.P.T., Inc., 843 F. Supp. 995 (D. Md. 1993). In Tfhat’s
Entertainment, the district court faced a similar fact pattern to the
one in this case. The plaintiff, That’s Entertainment, Inc. (“TEI”),
owned the exclusive closed-circuit television licensing rights to a
professional heavyweight boxing match. Id. at 997. Defendant James

Thomas, the owner of a commercial establishment, ordered the fight



order was given to him by Antenas Enterprises. The sales order form
that Garcia completed and signed as “installer” was an Antenas
Enterprises form. Antenas Enterprises provided the forms and tasks
to be completed by Garcia. It controlled the manner and method in
which Garcia completed his work.

In a late-filed affidavit, Garcia now claims that he worked for
Antenas Enterprises as an independent contractor, not an employee.
Neither Antenas Enterprises nor Garcia submits any evidence to refute
the above-mentioned evidence suggesting Garcia was an employee of
Antenas Enterprises. Because Dominguez makes this claim only in the
form of an unsubstantiated conclusion, it is not sufficient to defeat
summary judgment. Morris v. O’Boyle, 168 Fed. Appx. 118, 119 (7th
Cir. 2006).

Despite the fact that it was clearly a commercial establishment,
Garcia did not correct the work order. Installing the satellite and
completing the work order were within the scope of Garcia’s
employment . Thus, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, his
actions are imputed to Antenas Enterprises.

2. Antenas Enterprises Violated Section 605(a)

GCB contends that Antenas Enterprises violated Section 605(a) by
listing Mundelein Burrito as “Jose Melendez” when it forwarded the
complete work order to DISH Network for processing. According to
GCB, Antenas Enterprises knew the location was a restaurant, but
listed it as a residence. In support of its argument, GCB attaches

photographs of the restaurant located at the end of a commercial

-6-



subsection (a) 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) (ii). If the violation was willful and for purposes of

commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its

discretion may increase the award of damages . . . by an amount not
more than $100,000. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e) (3) (C) (ii). The court must
award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. 47 U.S.C. §

605 (e) (3) (B).

GCB argues that the Antenas Enterprises failure to properly list
Mundelein Burrito resulted in four separate violations. According to
the license fee charged for each of the four fights that were
illegally broadcast by Mundelein Burrito, the proper amount would
have been $20.00 times the maximum fire code occupancy (46) or
$3,680.00. Instead, due to the improper identification of the
account as residential, Mundelein Burrito paid only $184.40 to
broadcast the four events. GCB did not receive any of the $184.40.
GCB argues that in order to achieve deterrence in theft of cable
services, a multiplier of five (5) to seven (7) times actual damages
is appropriate.

The Court has wide discretion in determining the amount of
statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only by the specified
maxima and minima. Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network
Productions, 902 F.2d 829, 852 (llth Cir. 1990). In determining
statutory damages, the district court should consider both the

willfulness of the defendant’s conduct and the deterrent value of the



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F / L
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS May 23
-

EASTERN DIVISION May 3 Reo,
JUDGE Hap F 2005
US. Digg RYO.
4S: » LEY
GARDEN CITY BOXING CLUB, INC., TRICT Coup Noe
a California Corporation, UoGE
Plaintiffs, Case No. 04 C 0351
v. Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Individually
and d/b/a ANTENAS ENTERPRISES,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. (hereinafter, the “GCB”)
held exclusive licensing rights for the live broadcast of a boxing
match. Defendant Luis Dominguez (hereinafter, “Dominguez”) owned
Antenas Enterprises, the installer of a satellite account at
Mundelein Burrito restaurant. Antenas Enterprises listed Mundelein
Burrito as a residence instead of a commercial location. As a
result, Mundelein Burrito broadcast the boxing match without proper
authorization.

Before the Court is GCB’s Motion for Summary Judgment. GCB also
moves to strike Dominguez’s Response to its Summary Judgment Motion.
Dominguez filed his response forty-nine days past the due date and
failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1. The arguments contained in
Dominguez’s response do not change the outcome in this case. Thus,
GCB’s Motion to Strike is denied as moot. For the reasons stated

herein, GCB’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.



*1 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 1987). Accordingly, Dominguez is personally
liable for the damages caused by the violation of § 605 of the Act.
III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, GCB’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is granted. Antenas Enterprises and Luis Dominguez, personally, are
liable to GCB in the amount of $7,360.00. GCB is also entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees. Counsel shall submit its fee petition to
the Court no later than June 28, 2006.

GCB’s Motion to Strike is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court

Dated: fo As, ELLA

-i11-



through a residential account and broadcast it to patrons of the
establishment. Id. at 997-98. The court found defendant violated
the Act because he allowed the broadcast to be available to a
commercial establishment without proper authorization. Id. at 999.

Section 605(a) states “[a]n authorized intermediary of a
communication violates the Act when it divulges communication through
an electronic channel to one other than the addressee.” Mundelein
Burrito was clearly a commercial establishment. The structure of the
building, an exterior identification sign, and its location in a
strip mall made this obvious. Mundelein Burrito paid only the
residential fee for the four fights it broadcast to its patrons. It
was not an authorized addressee of any of the four fights. By
improperly listing Mundelein Burrito as a residence, Antenas
Enterprises allowed the unauthorized broadcast of the Event, and
three additional fights, to Mundelein Burrito. See National
Satellite Sports, Inc., 253 F.3d at 916. Like the defendants in
National Satellite Sports and fThat’s Entertainment, Antenas
Enterprises is liable under § 605 of the Act.

B. Damages

The unauthorized broadcast of the four separate events deprived
GCB of the full value of its business investment. Section 605
entitles a successful litigant to elect between either actual damages
plus the defendant’s profits or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. §
605 (e). Where an aggrieved party elects to recover statutory

damages, it may recover an award of damages “for each violation of

-8-



affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law.” Fep. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court must view all the
evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. See Miller v. Am. Family Mut. Ins.
Co., 203 F.3d 997, 1003 (7th Cir. 2000).
B. Liability Under Section 605 (a)

Section 605(a) of the Cable Communications Act (“the

Act”) provides:

[N}o person receiving [or] assisting in
receiving . . . any interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio shall divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except
through authorized channels of transmission or
reception, (1) to any person other than the
addressee, his agent, or attorney . . . No
person not being authorized by the sender shall
intercept any radio communication and divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted
communication to any person. No person not
being entitled thereto shall receive or assist
in receiving any interstate or foreign
communication by radio and use such
communication {or any information therein
contained) for his own benefit or for the
benefit of another not entitled thereto.

47 U.S.C. § 605(a). The Act prohibits commercial establishments from
intercepting and broadcasting to its patrons unauthorized satellite
cable programming. That’s Entertainment, Inc. v. J.P.T., Inc., 843

F. Supp. 995 (D. Md. 1993).



information, including the address and account name, to DISH Network
for further processing. On January 17, 2002, through its employee
Luis Garcia (hereinafter, “Garcia”), Antenas Enterprises incorrectly
identified the customer account at 220 Hawthorn Commons, Vernon
Hills, Illinois 60061 as “Jose Melendez,” a residential designation.
Despite its residential designation, the location is actually a
restaurant, Mundelein Burrito (formerly, El Famous Burrito). See
Plaintiff Exhibit B. Mundelein Burrito is located in a commercial
strip mall. Id. The signs and structure of the building clearly
indicate it is a restaurant. Id.

On September 14, 2002, Mundelein Burrito showed the Event to its
patrons. However, because Mundelein Burrito was classified as a
residence, it did not pay the proper fee for a commercial
establishment (calculated at $20 times the maximum fire code
occupancy). Mundelein Burrito’s maximum fire code occupancy is 46
persons. The satellite records show that Mundelein Burrito broadcast
three additional boxing events for which GCB had exclusive rights.
Affidavit of Marcus Corwin, 7 12. The sublicense fee for each event
was $20.00 times the maximum fire code occupancy. Because of its
designation, Mundelein Burrito paid residential rates to broadcast
all four of the fights.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

-~3-



I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from GCB’s Local Rule 56.1
submission. Because Dominguez failed to file his own Rule 56.1
submission, the facts are undisputed.

GCB is a corporation organized under the laws of California,
with its principal office and business located in San Jose,
California. Antenas Enterprises is an Illinois business located at
1239 West Madison, Chicago, Illinois. Dominguez is the sole owner
and operator of Antenas Enterprises.

GCB entered into an exclusive closed-circuit television license
agreement to distribute and exhibit the telecast of the September 14,
2002 professional prizefight between Oscar De La Hoya and Fernando
Vargas (“the Event”) at closed-circuit locations. Pursuant to the
agreement, GCB marketed and distributed its closed- circuit rights to
the Event to commercial establishments. Throughout Illinois, GCB
contracted with various commercial establishments, such as bars,
theaters, and restaurants to broadcast the Event in exchange for a
fee. A commercial establishment could only show the Event if it was
contractually authorized by GCB to do so and paid the appropriate
fee. The fee paid to GCB by a commercial establishment for the
Event was $20.00 times the maximum fire code occupancy of the
establishment.

Antenas Enterprises is authorized to sell and install satellite
systems under a contract with DISH Network. After installing

systems, Antenas Enterprises transmits the satellite receiver