J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Raquel Ortiz Reyes, et al, No. 1:2015cv01036 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Default Judgment be Granted signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/01/2016. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Raquel Ortiz Reyes, et al Doc. 33 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. 1:15-cv-01036-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, v. RAQUEL ORTIZ REYES, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (Doc. 31) _____________________________________/ 10 11 Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) seeks the entry of default judgment 12 against Defendants Raquel Ortiz Reyes d/b/a Los Reyes Mexican Food and Raul Reyes d/b/a Los 13 Reyes Mexican Food (“Defendants”). (Docs. 24; 27.) On January 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge 14 filed Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for default be granted 15 and that Plaintiff be awarded a total of $3,800. (Doc. 31.) The Findings and Recommendations 16 provided twenty-one days for the filing of objections. (Doc. 31.) On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff 17 objected, contending that the facts mandated an award of more damages than the amount 18 recommended by the Magistrate Judge since Defendants’ actions were willful and for the purpose 19 of commercial advantage or financial gain. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff argued that the amount of 20 damages recommended by the Magistrate Judge were insufficient to deter either Defendants’ or 21 the general public’s piracy of its boxing programs. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 24 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Representing 25 an amount more than twice that of the applicable licensing fee, total damages of $3,800.00 26 represent sufficient deterrence in a case against first-time offenders under the circumstances 27 presented. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Garcia, No. 1:12-CV-00366-LJO, 2012 WL 28 5417417, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (finding total damages of $2,400.00, twice the value of Dockets.Justia.com 1 the licensing fee, to “represent sufficient deterrence in a case against a first-time offender”). 2 Nor does the Court find persuasive Plaintiff’s argument for enhanced damages. Although, 3 “upon default, the well pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability are taken as 4 true[,]” Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th 5 Cir. 1983), the complaint in this matter alleges no facts constituting a well pleaded allegation that 6 Defendants’ actions were willful or for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain. 7 (See Doc. 31, p. 8.) 8 To adequately state a claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must set forth the legal and 9 factual basis for his or her claim. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare 10 recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 11 suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 12 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A plaintiff must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which 14 “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 15 of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted ). In its 16 complaint, Plaintiff simply alleged a legal conclusion: “Said unauthorized interception, reception, 17 publication, exhibition, divulgence, display, and/or exhibition by each of the Defendants was done 18 willfully and for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private financial 19 gain.” (Doc. 6, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff having failed to allege facts establishing the grounds of entitlement 20 to enhanced damages, this Court cannot award enhanced damages. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed 22 January 8, 2016, are adopted in full. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
