J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Meza-Jimenez
2:17-cv-01320
D. Ariz.Oct 6, 2017Background
- J & J Sports licensed a May 7, 2016 pay-per-view boxing broadcast (Canelo Alvarez v. Amir Khan) for commercial distribution to licensed establishments.
- Plaintiff alleges Taqueria Cajeme (a restaurant/bar in Mesa, AZ) and Nydia P. Meza intercepted and publicly displayed the broadcast to about 45 patrons without a license.
- Plaintiff served Nydia Meza and Taqueria Cajeme; they failed to answer and the clerk entered default. Francisco Meza Jimenez was also defaulted but plaintiff has not yet sought judgment against him.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605; supported by an investigator’s sworn affidavit describing the May 7 showing.
- The court applied the Eitel factors and found six factors favor default judgment (prejudice, merits, sufficiency, amount at stake, lack of excusable neglect, absence of factual dispute) and one neutral (preference for deciding on the merits).
- The court granted default judgment against Nydia P. Meza and Taqueria Cajeme, LLC for willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and awarded $30,000 in statutory and enhanced damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605 for unauthorized interception/display | Taqueria intercepted and publicly displayed the satellite broadcast to patrons (investigator affidavit) | No response or defense (default) | Default establishes well-pled allegations; defendants liable under § 605 |
| Willfulness and commercial purpose (for enhanced damages) | Showing was willful, commercial, and not accidental; second piracy offense by the establishment | No response | Court finds willful commercial violation; enhancement appropriate |
| Amount of statutory and enhanced damages | Requests $10,000 statutory + $20,000 enhanced = $30,000 as reasonable deterrent and proportionate punishment | No response | Court awards $30,000 total as reasonable given willfulness and prior offense |
| Appropriateness of default judgment | Clerk default entered; plaintiff would be prejudiced without judgment; complaint sufficient under Rule 8 | No response or excusable-neglect claim | Court exercises discretion under Eitel factors and grants default judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (default-judgment entry is discretionary)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors to weigh before entering default judgment)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (well-pled allegations deemed admitted on default)
- Nat'l Subscription Television v. S & H TV, 644 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1981) (elements of liability under § 605)
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 605 applies to satellite television signals)
- Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (9th Cir. 1999) (considerations in awarding statutory damages and deterrence)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (prejudice to plaintiff supports default judgment)
- Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (court not required to make detailed findings of fact when entering default)