Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. 152 Bronx, L.P.
11 F. Supp. 3d 747
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- The action is a § 553/605 anti-piracy suit under the Communications Act involving Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. and several Bronx Grill entities and individuals.
- Plaintiff alleges the Event broadcast on September 19, 2009 at the Bronx Grill Establishment was intercepted and shown without authorization and without the required license.
- Defendants admit the Event was broadcast at their Establishment but claim they believed they had right to show it because they purchased it from a provider.
- The parties engaged in discovery; Plaintiff moved for summary judgment with documentary support including affidavits, licensing contracts, and video evidence.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the amended motion for summary judgment, held Defendants liable for some corporate/managerial defendants, and deferred injunctive relief while addressing damages and attorney’s fees.
- The court reserved ruling on the amount of the willful-damages multiplier and on post-judgment injunctive relief, and gave Plaintiff time to locate proof regarding Owidi and Dobson’s supervisory roles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants violated § 605 by the unauthorized broadcast | Plaintiff: broadcast shown without authorization; strict liability applies | Defendants: he believed they had rights via purchase from provider | Yes, liability established for some defendants (152 Bronx LP, 152 Bronx GP, Hashemi, Taubin) |
| Whether Defendants are liable on a vicarious theory | Plaintiff: right/ability to supervise plus financial interest show vicarious liability | Defendants: some lacked proof of supervision, others contested supervisory status | Court finds vicarious liability established for several individual/LLC defendants; Owidi/Dobson unresolved for supervision |
| Appropriate damages and willful multiplier under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) | Plaintiff seeks $10,000 statutory plus up to $100,000 per willful violation and attorney’s fees | Defendants contest amount and willfulness | Statutory damages of $10,000 awarded; willfulness damages up to $100,000 discretionarily considered; damages to be determined later with injunctive relief deferred |
| Attorney’s fees and injunctive relief | Plaintiff seeks full costs including attorneys’ fees; contends injunctive relief warranted | Defendants seek limited fees and challenge hourly rates | Attorney’s fees awarded to Diaz; contingency fee denied; injunctive relief deferred pending resolution of remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment; absence of evidence defeats nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (clear evidence standard for genuine issues of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; inferences in movant’s favor)
- Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (9th Cir.1999) (unlicensed exhibition in a commercial setting violates the Act)
- Time Warner Cable v. Googies Luncheonette, Inc., 77 F.Supp.2d 485 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (willful or commercial-gain rationale for damages under the Act)
- Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (vicarious liability and willfulness principles in anti-piracy context)