J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Morelia Mexican Restaurant, Inc.
126 F. Supp. 3d 809
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- J & J Sports licensed the September 17, 2011 Floyd Mayweather v. Victor Ortiz pay‑per‑view event and sells sublicenses to commercial establishments.
- Plaintiff alleges Morelia Mexican Restaurant and owners Santos and Braulio Lozano intercepted and exhibited the scrambled/satellite broadcast at their restaurant on that date without authorization for commercial gain.
- Defendants were served but never answered; clerk entered default and Plaintiff moved for final default judgment.
- Plaintiff sought statutory and enhanced damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, attorney’s fees and costs, pre/post‑judgment interest, and a permanent injunction.
- An auditing visit observed advertising of the event, a $10 cover charge, broadcasting on five TVs (one large screen), sale of food/drink, and ~60 patrons.
- Court concluded default judgment procedurally appropriate, found pleadings sufficient under Rule 8, and evaluated damages, fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is appropriate | Defendants failed to respond; entry of default and final judgment proper | No appearance or defense | Default judgment procedurally warranted (entry of default, no excusable neglect) |
| Whether complaint states a claim under the FCA (47 U.S.C. §§ 553/605) | Alleged willful interception/unlawful exhibition of scrambled satellite signal to patrons | No answer; no contrary factual showing | Complaint pleads viable §605 claim sufficient under Rule 8 (assume well‑pleaded facts) |
| Measure and amount of damages under §605 (statutory and enhanced) | Requests $10,000 statutory; $50,000 enhanced for willful commercial violation | No response | Awards $5,000 statutory; finds willfulness and awards 4× statutory ($20,000) as reasonable (total $25,000) |
| Attorney’s fees, costs, and injunction | Seeks one‑third contingent fee (or $1,000), costs, and permanent injunction to bar future violations | No response | Grants $1,000 in fees (lodestar acceptable); denies costs without proof; denies permanent injunction as unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) (default judgments are drastic and disfavored)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default admits well‑pleaded facts but not conclusions on damages)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 pleading standard requires more than speculative allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (construes Twombly; plausibility requirement for pleadings)
- United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1979) (damages in default cases require hearing or detailed affidavits)