J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Sullivan, No. 1:2012cv00737 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/21/2012 adopting in part 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting in part 10 Motion for Default Judgment.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Sullivan Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ANGEL SULLIVAN, individually and d/b/a ) MOVICELL LATINO BOOST, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00737 AWI JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 15) 17 J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) seeks the entry of default judgment against 18 Defendant Angel Sullivan, individually and doing business as Movicell Latino Boost (“Defendant”). 19 (Doc. 10). 20 On December 5, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s application for default 21 judgment be granted in part, and recommended an award of $11,000 for Defendant’s violation of the 22 Communications Act and conversion. (Doc. 15 at 9). The Findings and Recommendations contained 23 a notice that any party may file objections within fourteen days of service, or by December 19, 2012. 24 Id. However, none were filed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 26 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 27 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court agrees that default judgement is 28 appropriate, but respectfully disagrees that an $11,000 award is appropriate. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 There is no evidence that Defendant is a repeat offender, the fight in question was broadcast 2 over a single 19" monitor, the establishment sells mobile telephones, no cover charge occurred, no 3 food or beverages were sold,1 it does not appear that the fight was promoted, and the facility is little 4 more than a kiosk. The evidence indicates that seats were set out in front of the kiosk and 15 people 5 appeared to be observing the fight. Given these considerations, the Court will award damages of 6 $3,500.00. Cf. Joe Hand Promotions v. Williams, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138247 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 7 2011) (awarding $3,300 in damages where between 17 and 25 patrons were present at a small pizza 8 restaurant that had three 36" televisions). Considering the nature and size of the Defendant’s 9 business, and in particular that Defendant appears to be a first time offender, the Court believes that 10 $3,500 reasonably compensates Plaintiff and reasonably deters Defendant. 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 1. 14 15 ADOPTED IN PART, as discussed above; 2. 16 17 The Findings and Recommendations filed December 5, 2012 (Doc. 15) are Plaintiff’s request for damages in the violation of the Communications Act and conversion is GRANTED in the amount of $3,500.00; and 3. 18 Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL submit a proposed form of judgment consistent with this decision within ten (10) days following the date of electronic service of this decision. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 0m8i78 December 21, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 The potential for commercial benefit of unlawfully showing a pay per view sporting event to an establishment that serves food and beverages would seem to be significantly greater than an establishment that only sells mobile telephones. 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.