Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Santana
6:19-cv-00116
M.D. Fla.Nov 1, 2019Background
- Joe Hand Promotions (Plaintiff) owns the distribution/public-performance and copyright rights to the Mayweather v. McGregor broadcast (Aug. 26, 2017).
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants (Lidia Santana, Manuel Santana, and Mali & Sons Inc.) intercepted/descrambled the encrypted satellite signal and exhibited the event at the Orlando Grill for commercial benefit.
- Defendants were served; Mali & Sons failed to answer and was defaulted; Santanas initially responded but later were defaulted for failing to comply with court orders.
- Plaintiff submitted affidavits (Marc Middleton observed ~200 patrons viewing the broadcast at the Grill; Joe Hand, Jr. described industry licensing and piracy) and moved for default judgment on § 605 and copyright claims.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting default judgment in part and denying in part, finding liability on both claims and recommending a joint-and-several monetary judgment of $78,800 (breakdown below); the motions did not properly seek attorneys’ fees despite fee affidavits being filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized interception/exhibition) | Defendants willfully intercepted/descrambled and exhibited the encrypted satellite broadcast for commercial gain; affidavits corroborate observations. | Default/no response; no substantive defense. | Default establishes liability; recommended final default judgment on § 605 claim. |
| Copyright liability under 17 U.S.C. § 501 | Plaintiff owns the copyright and Defendants unlawfully reproduced/exhibited the broadcast; the violation was willful. | Default/no response. | Default establishes copyright infringement; recommended judgment on § 501 claim. |
| Damages under § 605 (statutory and enhanced) | Seeks $10,000 statutory ($50 × ~200 patrons) and $30,000 enhanced (willful conduct) = $40,000. | No opposition. | Recommended $40,000 total under § 605 ($10,000 statutory + $30,000 enhanced). |
| Damages under § 504 (copyright statutory and enhanced) | Elects statutory damages; points to licensing fee avoided (~$8,200–$9,700) and requests $10,000 + $30,000 = $40,000. | No opposition. | Recommended $38,800 total ($9,700 statutory reflecting licensing fee + $29,100 enhanced). |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs | Complaint and affidavits mention fees/costs; Plaintiff included fee affidavits with motions. | No opposition. | Motions did not properly request fees; court recommended denying that relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nishimatsu Constr. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default does not admit legal conclusions; complaint must state sufficient facts to support relief)
- Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation, 789 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (default-judgment standard akin to surviving a motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must contain more than labels and conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaints must allege enough to state a plausible claim)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (default judgment cannot stand on a complaint that fails to state a claim)
- United States v. Howard, 13 F.3d 1500 (11th Cir. 1994) (prohibition on interception/descrambling of encrypted satellite signals)
- Cable/Home Comm’n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990) (district court has wide latitude in setting statutory damages for signal piracy)
- Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley, 635 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2011) (elements of copyright infringement claim: ownership and copying)
- Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 795 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2015) (willful infringement supports enhanced damages)
- N.A.S. Import Corp. v. Chenson Enters., Inc., 968 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1992) (factors for statutory damages include profits saved and plaintiff’s lost revenue)
- Dive N’ Surf v. Anselowitz, 834 F. Supp. 379 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (licenses avoided and plaintiff’s losses are relevant to statutory damages)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (Eleventh Circuit adopted prior Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent)