Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Elk's Lodge Coalinga 1613, No. 1:2012cv01998 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS on Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Default Judgment; ORDERED Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment Against Defendant: Elk's Lodge Coalinga 1613 dba Elk's Lodge #1613 aka Coalinga Elk's Lodge 1613, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/07/2013. Case Closed(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:12-cv-01998-LJO-MJS 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 15 ELK’S LODGE COALINGA 1613, (ECF No. 17) 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 6, 2012 20 alleging violations of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq.), the 21 Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 553 et 22 seq.), and asserting supplemental state law claims. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 23 On June 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against 24 Defendant Elk’s Lodge Coalinga 1613, an unknown business entity doing business as Elk’s 25 Lodge # 1613 and also known as Coalinga Elk’s Lodge 1613. (Application For Default 26 Judgment, ECF No. 13.) The Application was referred to the United States Magistrate 27 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District 28 Court for the Eastern District of California, who finding the matter suitable for decision 1 1 without a hearing, vacated the August 23, 2013 hearing and considered the Application 2 submitted upon the record in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). 3 On October 7, 2013, Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff’s Application for 4 Default Judgment (Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 17) were filed in which the 5 Magistrate Judge recommended the Application be granted and judgment entered against 6 Defendant Elk’s Lodge Coalinga 1613, an unknown business entity doing business as Elk’s 7 Lodge # 1613 and also known as Coalinga Elk’s Lodge 1613 as follows: 8 a. $10,000 statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; 9 b. $5,000 enhanced statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; and 10 c. $1,000 damages for the tort of conversion. 11 The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due within fifteen (15) days. 12 Neither party filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. In accordance with 13 the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 14 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 15 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis, provided that 16 damages for conversion shall be awarded in the sum of $1,100 rather than $1,000.1 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed October 7, 2013, modified as above, 19 2. 20 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against Defendant Elk’s Lodge 21 Coalinga 1613, an unknown business entity doing business as Elk’s Lodge # 22 1613 and also known as Coalinga Elk’s Lodge 1613 as follows: 23 a. $10,000 statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; 24 b. $5,000 enhanced statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; and 25 26 ///// 27 1 28 The Magistrate’s analysis concludes Plaintiff is entitled to damages for conversion in the amount of $1,100. (ECF 17 at 9:11-13.) However, the recommended amount of damages for conversion is $1,000. (Id. at 9:25.) The Court concludes the amount requested by Plaintiff, $1,100, is supported by the record and proper analysis and that conversion damages shall be awarded in the amount of $1,100. 2 c. 1 $1,100 damages for the tort of conversion. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 7, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.