Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09–1533 (CKK) ROSE’S DREAM, INC.,
Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 25, 2010)
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. brings this action against Defendant Rose’s Dream, Inc. for allegedly interfering with Plaintiff’s contractual right to distribute the live broadcast of the 2007 Bernard Hopkins vs. Ronald Wright championship boxing match. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intercepted the satellite or cable feed of the match and exhibited it to patrons at Rose’s Drеam Bar & Lounge at 1370 H Street, NE in Washington, D.C., in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605(a), and 605(e)(4). Presently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to assert a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the complaint and that Plaintiff lacks standing to file suit in the District of Columbia because it is an unregistered foreign corporation. For the reasons explained below, the Court shall DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a corporation involved in sports production. See Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff acquired the right to distribute the live broadcast оf the Bernard Hopkins vs. Ronald Wright *2 championship boxing match, which took place on July 21, 2007. Id. ¶ 8. The broadcast was transmitted via closed circuit television and/or via encryрted satellite signal and was subsequently re-transmitted to cable systems and satellite companies via satellite signal. Id. Plaintiff incurred significant costs in securing the contract tо license the broadcast to various entities within the District of Columbia, who made agreements with Plaintiff to publicly exhibit the match to their patrons and to not sub-license transmission of the broadcast feed. Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that the broadcast was not to be received and exhibited by entities unauthorized to do so. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights by unlawfully intercepting, receiving, and/or descrambling the satellite or cable signal and willfully exhibiting the broadcast for commercial advantage or private financial gain to patrons at Rose’s Dream Bar & Lounge, located at 1370 H Street, NE, Washington, D.C. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used an illegal satellite receiver аnd intercepted Plaintiff’s signal and re-transmitted via satellite or microwave signal to various cable and satellite systems. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant knowingly modified or usеd equipment or a device which it knew (or had reason to know) would be used primarily in the assistance of the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct violates 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605(a), and 605(e)(4). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant has moved for dismissаl of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). A court must dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) when it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. In determining whether there is jurisdiction, the Cоurt may “consider the
*3
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint
supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.”
Coalition for
Underground Expansion
,
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant raises two arguments why Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, Defеndant argues that Plaintiff failed to properly allege a basis for federal jurisdiction in the Complaint. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action becаuse it has failed to register as a foreign corporation as required by D.C. law. The Court shall address each of these issues in turn.
A.
Alleging a Proper Basis for Federal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that the jurisdictional allegаtions in the Complaint do not state a basis
for federal jurisdiction because they state only that the amount in controversy exceeds $100,000
and that Defendant’s principаl place of business is in the District of Columbia, and those facts
are insufficient to establish either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Defendant does not
dispute that subject mаtter jurisdiction may exist but contends that Plaintiff is required to amend
its Complaint to include a proper jurisdictional allegation.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain: (a) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction . . . .”) However, Defendant’s argument is overly technical; courts will not
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the basis for jurisdiction is clear
from the face of the complaint.
See Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. Fed. Serv. Impasses
Panel
, No. 08-5479,
It is clear from the face of the Complaint that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under a federal statute and therefore fall within the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the so-called “federal question” jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties оf the United States.”) Therefore, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriate.
B. Standing to Sue Under D.C. Law
Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action because Plаintiff is not authorized to do business in the District of Columbia and D.C. law prohibits unregistered corporations from filing suit in the District of Columbia courts. Defendant’s argument is based on two statutory prоvisions in the D.C. Code. First, D.C. Code § 29-101.99 requires that “[a] foreign corporation shall procure a certificate of authority from the Mayor before it transacts business in the District . . . .” D.C. Cоde § 101.99(a). Second, D.C. Code § 29-101.119 provides that “[n]o foreign corporation which is subject to the provisions of this chapter and which transacts business in the District without a certificate of authority shall be permitted to maintain an action at law or in equity in any court of the District until such corporation shall have obtained a certificate of authority. . . .” D.C. Code § 101.119(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiff is a foreign corporation transacting business in the District of Columbia without a certificate of authority and thereforе is barred by these statutes from bringing this action.
Whether or not J & J Sports Production, Inc. has transacted business in the District of
Columbia without a certificate of authority, the D.C. Code provisions relied upon by Defendant
do not control this Court’s federal jurisdiction over this case. As Judge Ellen S. Huvelle recently
explained in a similar case involving the same Plaintiff, these statutes “are not triggered in this
case because plaintiff’s cause of action is not derivative of, and therefore is not precluded by,
District of Columbia law.”
J &J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Humphries Enters., LLC
, No. 10-cv-266,
violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, and those statutes provide thаt “[a]ny person aggrieved by any violation of [these sections] may bring a civil action in a United States district court . . . .” 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(c)(1), 605(e)(3)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff has standing under federal law to bring his claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall DENY Defendant’s [8] Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Court shall hold an initial scheduling conference with the pаrties to set a schedule for proceeding with discovery. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: June 25, 2010
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
Notes
[1] Defendant’s reliance on
A. Tasker, Inc. v. Amsellem
,