J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. ZARCO, 1:12-cv-01642

J&J Sports holds exclusive commercial distribution rights to the November 13, 2010 pay‑per‑view boxing match "Tactical Warfare" (Pacquiao v. Margarito) and licenses commercial exhibitions to bars/restaurants.
On the night of the fight, investigator Thomas Newgent observed the match playing on a 37" TV at Super‑Tortas Estillo Barrio Restaurant; the restaurant was closed to the public and only a few people were present.
Defendant Alex Zarco owned/operated Super‑Tortas and, according to plaintiff’s requests for admission (to which Zarco did not respond), admitted he did not license the event and that the establishment intercepted/broadcast the program (including by diverting residential service or using an illegal decoder).
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment; defendant failed to respond to discovery or the summary judgment motion, producing default admissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
The court found liability established under the statutory anti‑piracy statutes (47 U.S.C. § 553 or § 605) based on the admitted facts, but declined to award enhanced statutory damages or conversion damages without a damages hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant unlawfully intercepted/broadcast the program	Zarco unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the match without a license, admitting diversion/decoder use	No response; default admissions established facts	Liability established under §553 or §605 based on Rule 36 admissions
Effect of Rule 36 admissions at summary judgment	Admissions are binding and can support summary judgment	No response/assertion	Court treated admissions as factual foundation and relied on supporting affidavits
Which statute applies and damages range (§553 v. §605)	Plaintiff seeks damages under §605 and maximum statutory penalties	No factual evidence pinpointing interception method; statute choice unclear	Court need not decide between §553 and §605; awarded statutory damages to be determined at hearing (but denied enhanced maximum award)
Conversion claim and enhanced damages	Plaintiff asserted conversion and willfulness to justify enhancement	No developed argument/evidence; no proof of advertising, cover charges, or repeat offenses	Conversion claim waived (undeveloped); enhanced damages denied; damages hearing set to determine statutory award and fees

McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 36 admissions can serve as factual predicate for summary judgment)
United States v. Norris, 88 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing §605 and §553 based on interception method)
Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2012) (perfunctory or undeveloped arguments are waived)