G & G Closed-Circuit Events L L C v. Maracas Mexican Restaurant L L C
5:14-cv-03208
| W.D. La. | Sep 22, 2016Background
- G&G Closed Circuit Events sued Maracas Mexican Restaurant, LLC and owner Antonio Martinez for showing a pay‑per‑view boxing match without authorization on Nov. 10, 2012; one defendant filed bankruptcy and a fourth defendant answered, so default sought only against Maracas and Martinez.
- Clerk entered default after Maracas and Martinez failed to respond; G&G moved for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 seeking statutory damages, enhanced damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under 47 U.S.C. § 553 (and alternatively other statutes).
- Investigator affidavit established the match was shown at the restaurant and observed 12 patrons; G&G’s president submitted evidence of commercial sublicense fees ($600 for 1–100 capacity establishments).
- G&G conceded that it could only recover under either 47 U.S.C. § 553 or § 605 depending on transmission method (wire vs. wireless) but proceeded under § 553 since it encompasses § 605 damages and the defendant’s default prevented proof of transmission method.
- The court found Maracas and Martinez liable under § 553 for unauthorized reception and exhibition, and willful commercial infringement, awarded statutory and enhanced damages, denied attorney’s fees for insufficient documentation, and granted costs to be submitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 553 (unauthorized exhibition) | G&G: match was intercepted and shown at Maracas without authorization; G&G was exclusive licensee | Maracas/ Martinez: (no responsive pleadings; default) | Court: default admits well‑pleaded facts; Maracas and Martinez liable under § 553 |
| Whether § 553 or § 605 applies | G&G: asserted both but acknowledged only one may apply; proceeded under § 553 since it covers § 605 range | Defendants failed to contest or show transmission method | Court: transmission method unknown but default prevents proof; analyze under § 553 |
| Individual liability (Martinez) | G&G: Martinez willfully directed employees to intercept/broadcast the match | Martinez: no response (default) | Court: Martinez is individually liable for assisting interception under § 553 |
| Damages and fees | G&G: statutory damages, enhanced damages for willfulness, attorney's fees and costs | Defendants: no opposition presented | Court: awarded $1,000 statutory, $500 enhanced (willful commercial advantage); denied attorney's fees for insufficient support; costs awarded, with memorandum of costs to be filed |
Key Cases Cited
- N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) (default judgment procedure and Rule 55 framework)
- Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2002) (default admits well‑pleaded factual allegations as to liability)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (plaintiff still must establish a viable claim despite defendant's default)
- James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 1993) (damages in default judgments may be established by affidavits and documentary evidence)
- United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1979) (hearing on damages unnecessary where amount is a liquidated sum or readily calculable)
- J & J Sports Prods. v. Mandell Family Ventures, L.L.C., 751 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2014) (§ 553 and § 605 are mutually exclusive depending on wire vs. wireless transmission)
- Charter Commc'ns Entm't I, DST v. Burdulis, 460 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2006) (remedies under §§ 553 and 605 are similar and address nearly identical conduct)