J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Chea
2:17-cv-01210
D. Nev.May 28, 2019Background
- J&J Sports Productions sued Soken Chea (d/b/a Vaping Aristocrats) for unlawfully intercepting and publicly exhibiting the March 3, 2014 boxing broadcast of Mayweather v. Maidana in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605.
- Chea was served but did not appear, answer, or otherwise defend; the clerk entered default on April 3, 2018.
- J&J moved for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Chea did not oppose the motion.
- The court applied the seven-factor Eitel test to determine whether default judgment was appropriate.
- The court found J&J’s complaint adequately pleaded willful, commercial interception supporting enhanced statutory damages under § 605 and no evidence of excusable neglect by Chea.
- The court granted default judgment for $10,000 (statutory base for one subsection) and $30,000 (enhanced damages), and allowed J&J to file a motion for attorneys’ fees by June 12, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment should be entered | Default appropriate because Chea failed to defend and clerk entered default | No opposition or appearance from Chea | Granted: default judgment entered (Eitel factors favor J&J) |
| Whether the complaint sufficiently states a § 605 claim | Complaint alleges unlawful interception and public exhibition of the Program; pleads willfulness and commercial gain | No response | Sufficient: well-pleaded facts taken as true on default (TeleVideo; Danning) |
| Whether enhanced statutory damages are justified | Investigation shows willful interception for commercial gain, supporting increased damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) | No response | Granted: court awarded $10,000 plus $30,000 enhanced damages |
| Whether defendant’s default was excusable | Chea had notice and long opportunity to respond; no evidence of excusable neglect | No response | Not excusable: factor weighs for default (High Country Broadcasting) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir.) (factors district court uses to decide default judgment)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir.) (well-pleaded facts taken as true upon entry of default)
- Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.) (sufficiency of complaint for default judgment review)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal.) (analysis of prejudice and Eitel factors)
- United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir.) (failure to appear supports default judgment against entities)