Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. C88-01, LLC
5:24-cv-00355
W.D. Tex.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ('Joe Hand') held the exclusive commercial license to broadcast the Andy Ruiz Jr. vs. Chris Arreola boxing match on May 1, 2021.
- Joe Hand alleged that C88-01, LLC d/b/a Cerveceria 88 and Hector A. Solis unlawfully intercepted and showed the program in their establishment without authorization or payment of licensing fees.
- Defendants were served but failed to respond or appear in the case, resulting in the Clerk's Entry of Default.
- The court issued a Show Cause Order, giving defendants another chance to respond, but they did not.
- Joe Hand moved for default judgment, asserting a violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605.
- The court treated the motion as unopposed and proceeded to consider merits and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment procedure | Defendants did not respond after proper service and opportunity | No response given | Procedurally warranted |
| Sufficiency of claim under § 605 | Facts demonstrate unauthorized interception and broadcast of program | No response given | Sufficient under Rule 8 |
| Entitlement to statutory and enhanced damages | Defendants' conduct entitles Plaintiff to statutory and additional damages | No response given | $50,000 total awarded |
| Attorneys' fees and costs | Plaintiff entitled based on litigation costs under statute and rules | No response given | Fees and costs awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) (outlining procedural requisites for default judgment)
- Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) (default judgment at court's discretion, not automatic)
- Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) (default judgment is drastic and not favored)
- Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 1998) (lists factors relevant to awarding default judgment)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default admits well-pleaded allegations but not conclusions of law)