Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Wing Spot Chicken & Waffles, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12718
E.D. Va.2013Background
- Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. moves for default judgment against The Wing Spot Chicken & Waffles, Inc. for broadcasting the Exhibition (UFC 128) without a sublicense.
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting default judgment and awarding damages; Count III of the complaint to be dismissed.
- Service of process: Clerk of the State Corporation Commission was served on June 14, 2012; service found proper under Virginia statutes and Federal Rules.
- Jurisdiction and venue: court has subject matter jurisdiction under federal statutes (47 U.S.C. § 605, § 553); personal jurisdiction and venue proper in the ED Virginia.
- Factual basis: defendant commercial establishment broadcast the Exhibition to patrons without a license, with ~40 of ~75 capacity watching, on March 19, 2011.
- Damages posture: plaintiff seeks statutory damages, willful damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs; Count III (conversion) to be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service of process proper? | Hand argued service via SCC clerk complied with Va. Code § 13.1-637(B) and Rule 4(h). | Not raised due to lack of response; defenses not asserted. | Yes; service proper under Virginia statute and FRCP. |
| Does the court have subject matter and personal jurisdiction and proper venue? | Claims arise under federal statute; defendant is located in Virginia; sufficient contacts and service. | Not contested due to default. | Jurisdiction and venue proper. |
| What damages are appropriate under 47 U.S.C. § 605 for willful interception and broadcast? | Award statutory damages and additional willful damages to deter piracy. | Not contested due to default. | Statutory damages of $4,000 and willful damages of $27,000 awarded; per-patron method used for deterrence. |
| Whether Count III (conversion) should be considered in the default judgment? | Plaintiff seeks relief on federal claims; conversion not clearly addressed in motion. | Not raised. | Count III to be dismissed; no supplemental jurisdiction analysis. |
| Are attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable and in what amount? | Fees and costs reasonable and recoverable under § 605(e). | Not raised. | Attorneys’ fees $1,500 and costs $500 awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Sarrion Travel, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 2d 533 (E.D. Va. 2012) (default judgment and admission of well-pleaded facts)
- Globalsantafe Corp. v. Globalsantafe.com, 250 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Va. 2003) (reasonable pleading standards in default judgments)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (facially plausible claims required)
- Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Colo. 2008) (damages under § 605 considerations and deterrence)
- Time Warner Cable v. Googies Luncheonette, 77 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (willful interception distinctions and enforcement)