Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Chapman, 2:15-cv-00460

Joe Hand Promotions, exclusive distributor of the Dec. 28, 2013 pay-per-view UFC 168 broadcast, sued Showtime Lounge & Grill LLC and its managing member Whitney Chapman for unlawfully exhibiting the program without paying for a commercial license.
Defendants failed to answer; clerk entered default and plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking statutory and enhanced damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under 47 U.S.C. § 605 (and alternatively § 553) and a state-law conversion claim.
Complaint alleges Chapman supervised/authorized the broadcast and that the bar showed the program on multiple screens for commercial advantage; investigator Gunn observed up to 43 patrons and five TVs, and reported no cover charge.
Because defendants defaulted, the court accepted plaintiff’s liability allegations as true but lacked evidence whether the signal was intercepted from satellite or cable; the court therefore proceeded under § 605 and dismissed the § 553 and conversion counts without prejudice.
The court awarded statutory damages based on Joe Hand’s rate chart ($1,250 for the venue capacity), found the violation willful, tripled statutory damages for enhancement ($3,750), and added costs ($520) and attorneys’ fees ($1,925) for a total of $6,195, holding Chapman jointly and severally liable with the LLC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability for unauthorized public exhibition under federal anti-piracy statutes	Joe Hand: defendants willfully intercepted/exhibited the pay-per-view without authorization and are liable under §605 (or §553)	No defense presented (default)	Default entered; liability found under §605; §553 and conversion dismissed without prejudice
Individual liability of managing-member Chapman	Joe Hand: Chapman had right/ability to supervise and direct financial interest, so liable personally	No defense presented	Chapman liable individually and jointly with LLC
Proper statute for damages when interception source unknown	Joe Hand: entitled to relief under applicable federal statute; where unknown, courts may award under §605	No defense presented	Court awarded under §605 (permits greater recovery) given lack of evidence on transmission source
Amount of statutory and enhanced damages	Joe Hand: requested $26,400 (rate/patron calculation with a multiplier for enhancement), plus costs and fees	No defense presented to contest calculations	Court rejected plaintiff’s multiplier method; used rate-chart statutory amount $1,250, found willful violation, tripled award to $3,750 for deterrence, plus costs/fees totaling $6,195

FMC Corp. v. Varonos, 892 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1990) (in a default, factual allegations deemed admitted)
Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d 1319 (7th Cir. 1983) (default judgment standards; allegations taken as true)
Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir. 1994) (court may enter default judgment if allegations suffice to establish liability)
Time Warner Cable v. Googies Luncheonette, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (where source of interception unknown, plaintiff may recover under §605 which provides greater recovery)
E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (U.S. 2002) (courts should avoid duplicative recovery)
Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1981) (treble damages serve punitive and deterrent purposes)
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ribeiro, 562 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (standards for individual liability where managing agent had ability to supervise and financial interest)