G AND G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS V. JESUS SEGURA, No. 21-16381 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT G AND G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, No. 21-16381 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07576-WHA Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. JESUS SEGURA, DBA La Selva Taqueria, individually, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 10, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. G & G Closed Circuit Events (G & G) seeks review of the district court’s default judgment against Jesus Segura, which awarded G & G $1,400 in statutory damages and $2,800 in enhanced damages under 47 U.S.C. § 553. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,400 in statutory damages under § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii), which permits a court to award statutory damages between $250 and $10,000 “as the court considers just.” See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).1 We reject G & G’s argument that the district court erred by conflating an award of actual damages under § 553(c)(3)(A)(i) with an award of statutory damages under § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). It is not error for a district court to consider estimated actual damages as a factor in determining the amount of statutory damages, so long as the damages award falls within the statutorily authorized range. See Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d at 350; 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). G & G’s argument that the district court failed to explain its rationale for its damages award is belied by the record. 1 Any error in holding that Segura was liable under 47 U.S.C. § 553 instead of 47 U.S.C. § 605, was harmless because the district court’s $1,400 statutory damages award falls within the damages range authorized by both statutes. See § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) (providing for a statutory damages range between $250 and $10,000) and § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) (providing for a statutory damages range between $1,000 and $10,000). 2 Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,800 in enhanced damages under § 553(c)(3)(B), which provides that a court may increase its statutory damages award “in its discretion” by up to $50,000 if it finds that the defendant’s conduct was “committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B). Because the court found that Segura’s conduct was willful and for commercial advantage or financial gain, its award was constrained only by the $50,000 statutory maximum. Id. G & G’s argument that Segura’s actions necessitate a higher statutory and enhanced damages award is not supported by the statute or precedent. See id.; Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d at 350. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
