Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Creative Entertainment, LLC
978 F. Supp. 2d 1236
| M.D. Fla. | 2013Background
- Joe Hand Promotions sued multiple defendants after an unauthorized showing of UFC 116 at the Pearl Lounge in Cape Coral, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act (47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605) and state-law conversion.
- Plaintiff asserted the Broadcast was encrypted and licensed for closed-circuit/paid exhibition; defendants allegedly intercepted and displayed it for financial gain.
- Complaint named individual owners/managers and related LLCs, alleging both direct participation and vicarious liability (supervisory control and financial benefit).
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint is ambiguous as to each defendant’s personal participation and that vicarious liability should not apply under the CCPA.
- The court reviewed Rule 12(b)(6) standards and found the direct-liability allegations vague (use of "and/or"), but concluded plaintiff adequately pled vicarious liability and conversion.
- Court dismissed Count I (direct CCPA liability) without prejudice, allowed Counts based on vicarious liability and conversion to proceed, and granted leave to amend Count I within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct liability under CCPA | Complaint alleges defendants (or their agents) intercepted/descrambled and exhibited the Broadcast willfully for profit | Allegations are ambiguous; plaintiff fails to plead each defendant’s personal participation | Dismissed without prejudice for Count I as currently pleaded; plaintiff may amend to plead direct liability clearly |
| Use of "and/or" / pleading clarity | Pleading in the alternative is permitted | "And/or" creates impermissible ambiguity under Rule 8 | Court found allegations vague; required clearer, concise allegations if asserting direct liability |
| Vicarious liability under CCPA | Defendants had supervisory authority and received financial benefit, so vicarious liability applies (by analogy to Copyright Act tests) | Owners cannot be held vicariously liable for employees’ CCPA violations; CCPA is silent on vicarious liability | Court held plaintiff sufficiently pled vicarious liability (right/ability to supervise + strong financial interest), so claim survives |
| Conversion of broadcast (state law) | Broadcast is an intangible business interest wrongfully used; conversion claim permitted | Conversion depends on direct liability; challenge based on CCPA vicarious-liability contention | Conversion claim allowed at this stage; courts may recognize conversion of satellite services/intangible business interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pleading standards; accept well-pleaded allegations as true)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (pleading and factual plausibility principles)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two-step plausibility framework)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Brown v. Crawford County, 960 F.2d 1002 (11th Cir. 1992) (dismissal standards)
- Time Warner Entm’t v. Worldwide Elecs., L.C., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (discussion of vicarious liability and statutory differences)
- Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Villalobos, 554 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (vicarious liability may be imposed where right/ability to supervise and financial benefit exist)