J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Brady
672 F. App'x 798
10th Cir.2016Background
- J&J Sports owned exclusive nationwide satellite-distribution rights to the May 4, 2013 Mayweather–Guerrero fight.
- Investigator observed the fight being shown at Cantina The Amazons (a bar operated by Brady) and counted 37 patrons viewing it.
- Photos (later conceded by Brady) showed a DISH Network satellite dish attached to the bar’s exterior; DISH could not locate an account for the bar’s address.
- J&J sued Brady under 47 U.S.C. § 605 (satellite signal piracy) and § 553 (cable piracy); the court focused on § 605 because evidence indicated satellite piracy.
- District court granted summary judgment to J&J and awarded the statutory minimum damages of $1,000; Brady appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady (individually) can be held liable for § 605 violations based on the bar’s showing of the fight | J&J: the commercial establishment that exhibited the fight is liable; Brady is responsible as operator | Brady: she did not personally intercept or order the signal; lack of personal involvement precludes liability | Held: Liability attaches to the owner/operator; Brady is legally inseparable from the business and admitted agents (manager/bartenders) acted for her, so she is liable |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (dish, showing to patrons) suffices to prove interception under § 605 | J&J: circumstantial evidence (dish + unauthorized public showing) supports inference of satellite interception | Brady: absence of direct proof of means of interception and no DISH account at the bar means insufficient proof | Held: Circumstantial evidence is adequate; the undisputed facts permit a reasonable inference that a satellite transmission was intercepted |
| Whether § 605 requires proof of financial benefit or ownership of a satellite account | J&J: financial profit not required for liability or statutory damages | Brady: argued liability should require obvious direct financial interest or ownership of service | Held: Financial benefit or account ownership not required; statutory liability and damages can be imposed without proof of profit |
| Whether burden shifting occurred when district court asked Brady to confirm presence of a satellite dish | Brady: court improperly shifted burden of proof to her | J&J: no improper shift; evidence and admissions supported judgment | Held: Court found Brady failed to preserve the burden-shifting argument on appeal; even on the merits no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirkheim v. First Unum Life Ins., 229 F.3d 1008 (10th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard on cross-motions)
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 605 reaches satellite transmissions; circumstantial evidence can establish interception)
- Cal. Satellite Sys. v. Seimon, 767 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985) (elements of § 605 liability)
- Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. 152 Bronx, L.P., 11 F. Supp. 3d 747 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (§ 605 strict liability and damages principles)