J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Palmer, No. 1:2018cv00062 - Document 11 (S.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court awards $3,445.00 to Plaintiff for liability and damages and fees. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 7/2/2018. (pts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Palmer Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION J & J Sports Productions, Inc., Plaintiff, * * V. * BRENDA D. PALMER, d/b/a A'S SPORTS BAR, CV 118-062 * * * Defendant. * * * ORDER Defendant September 13, showed a 2014, boxing without match first in her night obtaining club on Plaintiff's permission. In response. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging violations of federal law Defendant has judgment. not and appeared, requesting and $110,000 in Plaintiff seeks a damages. default Plaintiff's motion (doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. I. Plaintiff events . . . ." nationwide 2014, is "a commercial (Doc. 1 SI 9.) television boxing Background. match distributor sporting As such, it held the "exclusive distribution rights" to between "Mayhem" Floyd Marcos Rene Maidana, II. of (Id. SI 7.) a September Mayweather, Jr. 13, and Businesses could not show Dockets.Justia.com the fight without purchasing the rights to do so from Plaintiff. (See id. SlSl 7-10.) Plaintiff alleges that in September 2014 Defendant "was an owner and/or a controlling manager" of A's Sports Bar, located on Peach Orchard Road in Augusta, Georgia. (Id. ^ 6.) night Plaintiff of the investigator While inside Mayweather-Maidana to A's the Sports bar, Bar. the fight. (See investigator playing on five televisions. Doc. 10-2 sent at witnessed (Id. at 14.) On the an 14-16.) the fight According to the investigator. A's Sports Bar holds roughly 100 people. (Id. at 15.) Because Defendant was not authorized to show the fight at A's Sports Bar, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, asserting claims under 47 U.S.C. § 553 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. Plaintiff served Defendant, but Defendant has failed to appear in this action or respond to the complaint. (See Doc. 8.) Plaintiff moved for Clerk's entry of default, which the Clerk entered on April 30, 2018. (Docs. 8,9.) Plaintiff now moves for default judgment. (Doc. 10.) II. Discussion Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a court may enter default judgment against a defendant when (1) both subject- matter and personal jurisdiction exist, (2) the allegations in the complaint state a claim against the defendant, and (3) the plaintiff has shown the damages to 2 which it is entitled. See Pitts ex rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356-58 (S.D. Ga. 2004). "[A] defendant's default does not in itself warrant the court in entering a default judgment." Nishimatsu Constr. Co. V. 1206 Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, (5th Cir. 1975). Default judgment is warranted only "'when there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered." Surtain Hamlin Cir. 2015) omitted). And Terrace (citation Found., omitted) although a 789 F.3d (internal "defaulted 1239, 1245 quotation defendant is (11th marks deemed to admit v. the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, he is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law." Id. omitted). (citation The omitted) upshot of this (internal quotation standard is that "a marks motion for default judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state default a claim." judgment, "complaint Id. a contain[s] Thus, court when must evaluating look sufficient to factual see matter, a motion whether for the accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft V. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). A. Jurisdiction Before entering default judgment, a court must ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the jurisdiction defendant. 3 over Here, the the case and Court personal has both. Because Plaintiff's claims arise under federal law, the Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. because Defendant resides in Georgia, the Court has And personal jurisdiction over Defendant. B. Liability Plaintiff U.S.C. § 605, asserts which claims under prohibit U.S.C. § 553 interception of and 47 cable and Although the Eleventh Circuit has satellite programming. the 47 not yet addressed the issue, other courts, including district courts in the Eleventh Circuit, have concluded that plaintiffs may not recover under both § 605 and § 553 for the same conduct. TKR Cable Co. v. Cable City Corp., 267 F.3d 196, 207 {3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Norris, 88 F.3d 462, 465-69 (7th Cir. 1996); J & J Sports Prods., Inc v. WB-Diversifled Auto Servs., Inc., No. l:15-cv-2171-WSD, 2016). Rather, commercial satellite 2016 WL according establishments programming, 264935, to at these from while 269435, at *2. Like intercepting [§] 553 those (N.D. Ga. courts, "[§] 605 that occur through a cable network." WL *2 and addresses Jan. 21, prohibits broadcasting interceptions J & J Sports Prods., 2016 courts, this Court concludes a plaintiff may not recover under both statutes. Plaintiff does not Plaintiff obtained and satellite transmission. specify showed in the However, its fight because complaint through the whether cable elements of or a claim under § 605 and § 553 are the same, the Court will "giv[e] 4 Plaintiff the Plaintiff benefit for failing interception since knowledge." Id. omitted) of to this at the plead may *3 doubt" be and the ""not particular exclusively (alterations (internal quotation will in in fault manner of Defendant['s] original) marks omitted). [] (citation To succeed on a claim under either statute, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant "intercepted the program," (2) that the defendant "did not pay for the right to receive the transmission," and (3) that the defendant "displayed establishment." the program to patrons of [its] J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Just Fam, LLC, No. l:09-cv-03072-JOF, 2010 WL 2640078, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2010). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "did not contract with the Plaintiff or pay the necessary sublicense fee required" to show the fight, yet Defendant still "showed the [fight] at A's Sports Bar on the night of September 13, 2014 . . . ." (Doc. 1 SISl 10, 12.) Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a claim under § 553 or § 605. C. Damages Even in the default-judgment context, "[a] court has an obligation to assure that there is a legitimate basis for any damage award it enters . . . ." Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d conduct for a 1264, an sum 1266 (11th evidentiary certain or Cir. hearing a 2003). But a court need not when "the 5 is that sum plaintiff's claim be by can made certain computation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1); SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). Both § 605 and § 553 allow plaintiffs actual damages or statutory damages. award statutory violation. 47 finds damages the that between to $1,000 was either Under § 605, a court may and $10,000 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). violation pursue committed And for if each a ''court willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain," a court may award up to an additional $100,000 for each violation. court may award for each Id. between violation, § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). $250 and $10,000 in Under § 553, a statutory damages id. § 553(c)(3) (A)(ii), and up to $50,000 for willful violations, id. § 553(c)(3)(B). Plaintiff the Court to has elected award a to total seek of statutory $110,000. damages But courts and asks in this circuit, including this Court, "have ordered defendants to pay, as statutory damages, the amount of the license fee that they would have been charged if they had actually been authorized to show the program." Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Blanchard, No. 409-CV-100, 2010 WL 1838067, at *3 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2010); Joe Hand at Promotions, *3 (S.D. Ga. Inc. Jan. v. Flynt, 7, No. 2016). 6:15-cv-56, 2016 WL Because Plaintiff 93861, has not provided a compelling reason for the Court to do so, it will not stray from this method of calculating damages. According to Plaintiff's investigator, A's Sports Bar can hold about 100 people. pricing fight. plan, it (Id. (Doc. 10-2 at 15.) would at have cost 26.) The Under Plaintiff's Defendant $2,200 to show Court therefore awards the statutory damages in the amount of $2,200.^ D. Attorneys' Fees Plaintiff § 553(c)(2)(C) also and requests attorneys' § 605(e)(B)(iii), which recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees. fees allow under for the According to an invoice submitted by Plaintiff's counsel, he spent 4.30 hours working on this case, totaling $1,252.50 in fees. (Doc. 10 at 5-6.) Courts rely on, among other things, the ''going rate" in the legal community when deciding amount of attorneys' fees. 604, 609 (11th Cir. 1990). of deciding Ala. district at constitutes a reasonable Martin v. Univ. of S. Ala., 911 F.2d The "legal community" for purposes what fees are reasonable is the district in the court sits. (N.D. what Knight v. Alabama, 824 F. Supp. 1022, 1027 n.l 1993). $300 which an The Court hour. has set See the Plumbers and going rate in Steamfitters this Local No. 150 V. Rice, CV 115-200, Doc. 37 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2017). Plaintiff's counsel's billable rate ranged from $200 an hour to ^ As noted, Plaintiff also seeks $100,000 in enhanced damages because, Plaintiff contends. Defendant willfully committed the violation. But Plaintiff does not offer any facts to support this allegation. And although the Court must deem well-pleaded facts admitted, it need not accept legal conclusions as true. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat^l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court thus declines to award enhanced damages. 7 $375 an hour. (Doc. 10 at 5-6.) Plaintiff's counsel billed .10 hours hour; at the adjusts the rate fee recalculating of $375 an for that .10 the attorneys' accordingly, the Court hours from $37.50 to $30. After fees to reflect this adjustment, the Court determines the appropriate amount of total attorneys' fees to award in this case is $1,245. In short, because Plaintiff's complaint contains sufficient facts showing that Defendant committed the alleged violation, and because the Court is able to calculate Plaintiff's damages without a hearing, default judgment is appropriate. however, declines to award damages in the The Court, amount requested by Plaintiff. Ill. The Court GRANTS IN Conclusion PART AND motion for default judgment. (Doc. motion with respect amount of $3,445. to liability DENIES 10.) and IN PART Plaintiff's The Court GRANTS the damages and fees in the But, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to the extent Plaintiff requests additional damages. The Clerk is instructed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,445 and to CLOSE this case. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this day of July, 2018. ' J. RT^NDg^HALL,/CHIEF JUDGE unite5;;^ates district court -SOUTfT^N DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
