NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No.: 10-3789 (CCC)

OPINION

CECCHI, District Judge.

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions (“J & J Sports”) moves for default judgment against

Leah Edrington, individually and as principal of The Blu Door Cigar Lounge, LLC doing

business as The Blu Door Cigar also known as Blu Door Cigar (“Blu Door”) pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The motion is decided without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 3 & 3 Sports’ motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff J & J Sports, a California corporation located in California, is an international

distributor of sports and entertainment programming. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff purchased the

exclusive territorial rights to distribute the November 14, 2009 Pacquaio/Cotto Boxing event

(“Pacquaio Event”) to commercial establishments. (Compl. ¶J 17-19.) On July 28, 2010

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Leah Edrington and her business, Blu Door.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants illegally and willfully intercepted the program for the purpose

of obtaining a commercial or financial advantage. (Compi. ¶ 20.)

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEAH EDRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

1

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 152
In order to protect its rights to the Pacquaio Event, Plaintiff hired investigative services to

identify commercial establishments that were unlawfully intercepting and publicly displaying the

Pacquaio Event without Plaintiffs authorization. ($ Affidavit ofJoseph Gagliardi ¶ 5; Ex, A.)

On November 14, 2009, an independent investigator/auditor witnessed the commercial display of

the Pacquaio Event at Defendant’s commercial establishment. (Se çj. ¶ 7; Ex. C.) According to

Plaintiff, Defendants did not purchase the rights to broadcast the Pacquiao Event from Plaintiff

and were therefore not authorized to show the event. (Id. ¶ 6.)

In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully intercepted the Pacquaio Event

when they “used an illegal satellite receiver, intercepted Plaintiffs signal and/or used a device to

intercept Plaintiff’s broadcast, which originated via satellite uplink and then re-transmitted via

satellite or microwave signal to various cable and satellite systems.” (Compi. ¶ 21). Plaintiff

alleges that this conduct violates 47 U.S.C. § 605. (. ¶f 23-25). Plaintiff seeks maximum and

enhanced statutory damages under this statute as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

Defendant Blu Door was served with process on August 14, 2010 and Defendant

Edrington was served with process on August 18, 2010. (See ECF Docket

Entry Nos. 4 & 5.) On October 22, 2010, Leah Edrington filed a letter with this Court, stating

that neither she nor Blu Door had been properly served and that they had legally purchased the

Pacquaio Event on November 14, 2009. (Letter from Leah Edrington, Oct. 22, 2010, ECF

Docket No. 8.) However, Defendants failed to make an appearance on the record, answer the

complaint, oppose the instant motion for default judgment, or otherwise defend themselves. On

October 14, 2011, J & J Sports moved for default judgment against all Defendants and the

Clerk’s Office entered default, This Court terminated the pending motion for default judgment

and ordered the case to Mediation on August 8, 2011. The Defendants failed to appear at the

2

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 153
mediation conference and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was reinstated against all

Defendants on November 22, 2011.

IL STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the entry of default judgment. This Court is

authorized to enter a default judgment based solely on the fact that a default has occurred.

Anchorage Assocs. V. Virgin Is. Rd. Of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 177 n.9 (3d Cir. 1990). The

Court will treat the factual allegations in the complaint as conceded by the defendant and will

acknowledge them as true, except as to damages. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162, 165

(3d Cir. 2005). The Court must make an independent determination regarding any question of

law and will “consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action.”

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Asher, Civ. No. 03-1969, 2006 WL 680533, at *1 (D.NJ, Mar. 14, 2006)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court will deny a default judgment if the

complaint fails to state a claim. To properly state a claim, a plaintiff must plead “sufficient

factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible, thus enabling the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct alleged.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v.

Arngen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,

210 (3d Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). When considering whether to enter a

default judgment, the Court may take into account a number offactors including: (1) whether the

plaintiff will be prejudiced by denial of default judgment; (2) whether the defendant has a

meritorious defense; and (3) whether the defendant’s delay in responding is the result of his own

culpable conduct. See Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000).

IlL DISCUSSION

A Liability Under 47 U.S.C. § 605

3

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 154
In its complaint, J & J Sports seeks relief under either 47 U.S.C. § 605 or 47 U.S.C. §553.

These statutes prohibit the unauthorized interception and broadcast of communications. Both

statutes have common elements that require the plaintiff to show that the defendants (1)

intercepted a broadcast; (2) were not authorized to intercept the broadcast; and (3) showed the

broadcast to others. 47 U.S.C. § 553, 605; J&J Sports Prods. v. Gencarelli, No. 10-cv-4513,

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32523, at *4..5 (D.NJ, Mar. 28, 201 1); J&J Sports Prods. v. Gallegos,

No, 08-201, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61066, at *6..8 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2008). Additionally, these

statutes allow for enhanced damages if the plaintiff proves that the interception of the broadcast

was willful and for commercial advantage or private gain. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient undisputed facts to support the common elements of

both statutes. Plaintiff owned the exclusive rights to distribute the Pacquaio Event on November

14, 2009. (See Gagliardi Aff ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Plaintiff hired independent auditors to identify

commercial establishments that were unlawfully broadcasting the program. (Id. ¶ 4; Ex. C.) An

independent auditor discovered that Defendants were broadcasting the Pacquiao Event at their

commercial establishment to twenty-seven individuals and charging a fee of $10.00 for entry.

(Id. ¶ 7; Ex. C.) Therefore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intercepted the Pacquiao Event

without authorization, and exhibited the broadcast at their commercial establishment willfully

and for commercial advantage or private gain. (See Id.)

The pirating of television programs, such as that which occurred here, either falls within

the purview of § 553 or §605 but cannot fall within both. See TKR Cable Co. v. Cable City

p, 267 F.3d 196, 207 (3d Cir. 2001). In its complaint, Plaintiff acknowledges that it cannot

determine the manner in which the Defendants intercepted the signal, whether it was through a

cable system in violation of § 553 or a satellite transmission in violation of § 605, without further

4

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 155
discovery or admission by Defendants. (Compi. ¶ 33.) This Court has addressed this problem

in previous cases by “not faulting Plaintiff. . . for failing to plead the particular manner of

interception since this may be exclusively within the Defendants’ knowledge,” J&J Sports

Prods. v. Podermo, No. 06-1374, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21137, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar, 26, 2007).

This Court has awarded damages in an “authorized amount of statutory damages for the illegal

interception of programs under either § 553 or § 605.” at *4 Following that precedent, the

Court is satisfied that that J & J Sports has pled facts that give rise to a cause of action either

under § 553 or § 610 and it is entitled to statutory and enhanced damages authorized under those

statutes.

B. DAMAGES

J & J Sports seeks an award of $10,000 in statutory damages and $30,000 in enhanced

damages from each Defendant for a total of $80,000. (Pl.’s Mem. at 16.) Both § 553 and § 605

permit Plaintiff to elect to receive statutory damages based on statutory guidelines and judicial

discretion rather than actual damages. 47 U.S.C. §‘ 553, 605. Section 605 allows for basic

statutory damages of “not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000” plus enhanced damages of

“not more than $100,000.” § 605. Section 553 provides basic statutory damages of “not less

than $250 or more than $10,000” and enhanced damages of “not more than $50,000.” § 553.

Courts in this District have awarded statutory damages in excess of actual damages for

the purpose of deterrence, Comcast Cable Comm. v. Bowers, Civ. No, 06-1664, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 38513, at *12 (D.N.J. May 25, 2007) (awarding statutory damages in the amount of

$ 10,000 where actual damages were much less in order to serve as a deterrent). However,

Courts have also declined to award the maximum statutory damages when there is a large

discrepancy between the maximum statutory damages and actual damages, despite its deterrent

5

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 156
effect. See J&J Sports Prods. v, Munguti, Civ. No. 06-1282, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22096, at

*3 (D.N.J. March 26, 2007) (awarding statutory damages of $1,200 and noting that “[tjo award

Plaintiff the maximum amount of enhanced statutory damages, or even a substantial amount of

such damages under these circumstances, would siguificantly overcompensate Plaintiff”).

The Court may also award enhanced damages under § 553 and § 610. Under these

statutes, enhanced damages are appropriate when the violation was committed “willfully and for

purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” § 553(c)(3)(B),

61 0(e)(3)(C)(ii), In detennining whether to award enhanced statutory damages, Courts have

taken into consideration whether the defendant advertised the broadcast, charged a cover fee to

view the broadcast, received increased profits from the sale of food and beverages, illegally

exhibited other events at their establishment, or otherwise profited from their illegal interception

of the program. $çç Munguti, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22096 at *11 (awarding $800 in enhanced

damages where defendants showed the event to approximately eighty people, but there was no

evidence that defendants charged a cover or advertised the event); J & 3 Sports Prods. v.

Gallegos, Civ. No. 08-201, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61066, at *8 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2008) (awarding

$1,000 in enhanced statutory damages where the event was only shown to nine customers and no

evidence was shown that defendants charged a cover or advertised); Kingvision Pay-Per-View

Ltd. v. Rodriguez, No. 02-7972, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2674 at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2003)

(awarding $1,000 in enhanced damages where plaintiff showed no proof that defendants

advertised the event or charged a cover to the approximately forty customers in attendance).

Here, Plaintiff asserts that it suffered at least $2,200 in actual damages, based on the

amount that Defendants would have paid to legitimately purchase the right to commercially

exhibit the Pacquaiao Event, (P1. ‘s Mem. at 13; Ex. A.) The Court is satisfied that this an

6

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 157
appropriate amount of statutory damages and will provide a sufficient deterrent effect. As such,

the Court will award Plaintiff $2,200 in statutory damages.

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants showed the Pacquiao Event to approximately fortyeight people and charged a cover charge of $10.00 per person to view the broadcast. (Pi.’s Mem.

at 3-4.) In light of this, the Court is satisfied that the profit earned by Defendants warrants

enhanced statutory damages of $2,000. Therefore, J & 3 Sports is awarded enhanced and

statutory damages in the total amount of $4,200.

D. ATTORNEY’S FEES

Sections 553 and 605 permit the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to an

aggrieved party that prevails on a claim, 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C), 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff

has requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $4,395. (See Lonstein Aff.,

Nov. 29, 2011, ECF Docket No. 21.) Plaintiff supports this figure with an affidavit from its

attorney detailing the hours that he and his paralegal worked and the costs expended. (Id.) The

Court is satisfied that these fees are reasonable and awards Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs in

the amount of $4,395.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted in the amount

of $4,200 in statutory and enhanced damages and $4,395 in attorney’s fees and costs against

Defendants jointly and severally.

Dated: February / c— , 2012

I i

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States District Judge

7

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 158