Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Beck et al, No. 1:2015cv00080 - Document 27 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court grants Plaintiff's request for statutory damages of $1,800.00 and attorneys' fees of $2,152.50. The Court directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Martin and 3 Owners Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Surreal at Surrey. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Beck will remain pending. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/11/2016. (thb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Beck et al IN THE Doc. 27 UNITED STATES SOUTHERN AUGUSTA JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT FOR THE OF GEORGIA DIVISION * INC., * Plaintiff, * * v. JASON BECK, CLINTON MARTIN, individually, and as officers, directors, shareholders and/or principals of 3 Owners Enterprise, Inc.; 3 OWNERS ENTERPRISE, INC. d/b/a SURREAL * * AT SURREY, l:15-cv-80 * * * * * Defendants. ORDER This default case comes judgment. GRANTS IN PART before For Plaintiff Inc. the Court reasons on Plaintiff's discussed Martin, below, for the Court filed Jason Beck, PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND this Matthew suit G. d/b/a Surreal at Surrey against Widener, Defendants and ("Surreal"). Defendants violated either 47 U.S.C. 3 Owners Enterprise, The suit alleges that § 553 or § 605 by showing UFC 163: Aldo versus Korean Zombie ("the Program") August 3, 2013. motion Plaintiff's motion. I. Clinton the at Surreal on (Compl., Doc. 1.) Dockets.Justia.com Widener answered, from this case. subsequently (Docs. 13, 21, 26.) never filed responsive pleadings. clerk entered against Beck Plaintiff default and then against Surreal filed on the judgment against Beck, settlement with Beck. Beck, Martin present the pendency of this motion, and was Martin, dismissed and Surreal Upon Plaintiff's motion, July Martin, settled, 27, on July 2015. motion 16, 2015 (Docs. for and 18.) of default (Doc. 22.) and Surreal. entry 16, the During Plaintiff notified the Court of its (Doc. 24.) Below, the Court considers Plaintiff's motion against Martin and Surreal. II. A. ANALYSIS Requirements for Default Judgment Federal ability to Rule of grant a Civil default Procedure 55(b) judgment and governs vests the the Court's court discretion to determine whether it should enter judgment. ex rel. (S.D. Pitts v. Ga. Seneca Sports, 2004). " [A] Inc., Defendant's 321 F. Supp. default does warrant the court in entering a default judgment. a sufficient basis Nishimatsu 1206 Constr. (5th Cir. in Co. 1975).1 1 In Bonner v. the pleadings v. Houston for the Nat'l A defendant, City of Prichard, Pitts 2d 1353, not with in 1356 itself There must be judgment entered." Bank, 515 F.2d by his default, 661 F.3d 1206, 1200, is only 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the former Fifth Circuit's decisions prior to October 1, 1981. deemed to have admitted allegations of fact." for the entry of liability; and (3) Id. the "plaintiff's Three distinct matters are essential default judgment: damages. Pitts, under 28 Complaint, Martin is principal place U.S.C. of Accordingly, and this a § 1331. resident has jurisdiction; (2) 2d at 1356. the Court has subject-matter business Court (1) 321 F. Supp. On the jurisdictional element, jurisdiction well-pleaded of Georgia is personal According to the Surreal's Augusta, in and Georgia. jurisdiction over Martin Surreal. The Court discusses the remaining issues of liability and damages below. B. Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605 When Plaintiff filed its what method Accordingly, both 47 Defendants the transmissions, cable § Plaintiff, sections. Joe 605, 2010 WL however, Id. Hand for intercept only *2 Inc. (S.D. recover "In this circumstance, v. Ga. under Program. claims via under satellite for interceptions, Promotions, at the "alleged interceptions § 553, 1838067, may to it could not determine alternatively and 47 U.S.C. systems." 4:09-cv-100, used Complaint U.S.C. Complaint, by way of Blanchard, No. May 3, 2010). one of those the Court elects to give Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and not fault it for failing to plead the particular manner of interception since this may be exclusively in omitted). Defendants' The Court knowledge." will, Id. therefore, (alteration examine Martin and Surreal's liability under § 605. Under the default whether the § 605. For purposes factual allegations appearing, Constr. "To alleged facts of state a liability, contained in Co., Defendants (1) did a violation the the Court the liability will Complaint, under consider the which, have admitted. and patrons pay their of Inc. July (3) v. 2, lO-cv-00085-KD-C, of Defendants not transmission, Ala. for assess by not Nishimatsu 515 F.2d at 1206. establish Promotions, the Court must claim Defendants are deemed to establish that (S.D. judgment standard, § for the commercial 2015) 2011 No. right plaintiff (2) receive the the program establishment.'" 14-CV-348-KD-C, 1539878, at *4 Joe 2015 LLC v. (S.D. xmust program, to displayed (quoting Zuffa, WL a intercepted the Defendants Neal, 605, WL Hand 4039076 Al-Shaikh, Ala. to April No. 21, 2011)). Additionally, Program to hold at Martin showing the Surreal, that he had the "right and ability to individually Plaintiff must liable also for establish supervise the violations, and that he had a strong financial interest in such activities." Joe Hand Promotions, 1838067, at *3 Inc. (S.D. Ga. v. Blanchard, May 3, No. 4:09-cv-100, 2010) (quoting J & 2010 WL J Sports Prods., *5 Inc. (M.D. v. Fla. The Arboleda, Oct. 27, admitted No. 6:09-cv-467, 2009 WL 3490859, at 2009)). facts establish the following: Plaintiff possessed the right to distribute the Program via closed circuit television and encrypted establishments. Program to (Compl. cable and satellite signal. relevant f (Id.) licensees to were Plaintiff providers however, they are sub-licensees. entities granted the in right to the commercial distributed television Instead, eventual to show the via a are not the a The State the means actual of of sub Georgia" to Program publicly. I 14.) Martin Surreal, is an owner, officer, located in Augusta, capacity and [Surreal] on agent employee or control August over 3, the 2013." showed Martin and for authorization. Surreal the displaying The Court judgment as to liability. are director, or shareholder of Georgia and possessed "supervisory activities (Id. 11 Program without Plaintiff's authorization. § 605 signal These providers, "various whom Plaintiff 13.) satellite sub-licensees. distribution (Id. satellite (Id. therefore the GRANTS Program at occurring 6-8.) Martin Surreal on within or his August 3 11 16-17.) liable under at Surreal Plaintiff's motion 47 for U.S.C. without default C. Damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605 Section 605 permits either actual or statutory damages, the Plaintiff's election. case, Plaintiff 22.) elected to With respect § 605(e) (3) (C) (i) (II) maximum of pursue to § 605(e)(3)(C)(i). statutory damages. statutory damages, In this (Compl. 47 1 U.S.C. provides a minimum award of $1,000 and a $10,000 Additionally, willfully 47 U.S.C. at for each violation of § 605(a). if the Court finds that a "violation was committed and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may up increase the award of § 605(e) (3) (C) (ii) . had no reason to of this statute, But believe 4319, (quoting 2013 47 "where that *the his to $100,000. violator acts was constituted WL Joe Hand Promotions, 5526524, U.S.C. at *3 n.2 Inc. (N.D. § 605 (e) (3) (C) (iii)) . v. 111. 47 not an award of damages may be reduced not less than $250.'" C damages" a U.S.C. aware and violation' Ato a sum of Zani, Oct. Reasonable 7, No. 11 2013) attorneys' fees are also available under § 605(e) (3) (B) (iii) . Plaintiff seeks the maximum amounts of $10,000 in statutory damages, (Compl. $100,000 1 21.) in enhanced damages, The Court finds that, and attorneys' in this case, fees. damages are "for a sum which can by computation be made certain" without the need for a hearing. Inc. v. Cir. 2011). Fed. Hollywood Gadgets, R. Civ. Inc., P. 55(b)(1); see Tara Prods., 449 F. App'x 908, 911-12 (11th 1. Statutory Damages Plaintiff argues statutory maximum of that Defendants' conduct $10,000 in damages. warrants In support, the Plaintiff cites district courts that have employed a multi-factor analysis to determine the appropriate statutory damages award. at 8 No. (citing, e.g., C-02-2768-SC, 2002))). In Universal Sports Networks, 2002 WL fashioning a 31109707, at *2 Inc. (N.D. statutory damages (Doc. 22-2 v. Cal. award, Jimenez, Sept. these courts have considered many factors including whether the defendant a repeat Jimenez, offender the extent 2002 WL 31109707, at *2. adopt this of the financial gain. (Doc. "other Circuit—have is E.g. , Plaintiff urges the Court to framework and to make deterrence a central its analysis. But and 18, factor in 22-2 at 8.) courts—particularly ordered defendants those to pay, within Eleventh statutory as the damages, the amount of the license fee that they would have been charged if they had actually been authorized to show the program." Hand Promotions, 1838067, approach at *3 taken Inc. (S.D. by v. Ga. Blanchard, May 3, 2010). district courts in No. 4:09-cv-100, 2010 Joe WL The Court finds that the the Eleventh Circuit is appropriate in this case. According Plaintiff used to a Joe rate Hand, card to Jr., determine Plaintiff's the president, licensing fee for the Program by reference to the licensed establishment's maximum occupancy. (Doc. 22-2 Ex. 1.) Additionally, Edward McKnight, Plaintiff's investigator, estimated capacity of 250-300 persons. indicates that (Doc. that Surreal 22-2 at has 16.) a The rate card establishments with a maximum occupancy of 300 persons were charged $1,800 to show the Program. 2, 1 8; Doc. maximum 22-2, Ex. 1.) The Court, therefore, 250- (Doc. 22- awards $1,800 in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). 2. Enhanced Damages Plaintiff enhanced also seeks damages. the statutory maximum of Enhanced damages are $100,000 available when in the violation was "committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect U.S.C. to commercial advantage § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). the commercial or private financial gain." 47 Many courts look to factors relating advantage or financial gain realized by defendants to determine whether such a violation occurred. See, e.g., 2013 J & J Sports Prods., WL 228962, at *5 (M.D. Inc. Jan. Pa. v. Kraynak, 22, 2013 No. 10-cv-2486, (noting courts consider "the number of televisions broadcasting the event, of a cover charge, event in defendants the made sale of food or drink, defendants' more money bar, or and conducted the existence advertisement a of the demonstration additional that business by illegally broadcasting the event"). Plaintiff, however, illogical and infringing activity," looking to argues inconsistent avoid, because not that with such the test very "[c]ommercial attract, a detection nature signal for is "largely of pirates their the are unlawful acts . (Doc. 22, Ex. 2 at 10.) For this reason, Plaintiff argues that this Court should follow other courts that award enhanced damages for the act of interception and not the promotion of the event. Plaintiff's preferred test direct gain" or indirect out of the commercial statute. J & J Sports Prods., WL 4512322, at all Inc. *4 (N.D. reads advantage 47 v. but U.S.C. Bolano, Cal. No. July conjunctive nature of the statute) . private or § "for purposes financial 605 (e) (3) (C) (ii) ; 5:14-cv-03939-BLF, 24, 2015) of (noting For this reason, see 2015 the the Court finds that a multi-factor analysis of the commercial purposes is the proper inquiry. See Kraynak, Plaintiff that admitted purposes argues that of they direct financial gain." elements, however, Ashcroft v. Defendants have Defendants showed alternatively to obtain are access to commercial Bare U.S. 662, the multiple 663 (id. show willful necessary to Plaintiff's Complaint contains a no advantage 1 private a claim's allegations. allegation that Complaint also may but have without violation. allegations for Accordingly, The 17), and have or of factual Defendants Program to "willfully (2009). willfully. specificity deemed Complaint's methods at *5. recitals well-pleaded Program the are Program 16.) admitted the pleads SI not 556 not the indirect (Compl. Iqbal, Defendants showed or 2013 WL 228962, the Moreover, concerning Defendant advertised or otherwise promoted the Program. used how Accordingly, necessary to 4512322, at cv-00001, Hand award *4; case enhanced 2014 WL 3749148, at *5 Court of the Inc. that 47 additional damages. See Inc. v. evidence Bolano, Plummer, 2015 No. WL 3:14- at *3 (N.D. Miss. July 29, 2014); Joe v. Becchetti, (M.D. Pa. Aug. finds violation lacks Joe Hand Promotions, Promotions, 4520638, the this 26, 2013). Defendant's U.S.C. No. § 12-cv-1242, 2013 WL Without that evidence, conduct does not constitute 605 (e) (3) (C) (i) (11) . The a Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's request for enhanced damages. 3. Attorneys' In addition reasonable (Doc. Fees 22 attorneys' at 5-7; Plaintiff's expended damages, fees Decl. counsel litigating attorneys' evidence to fees. regarding under of this U.S.C. D. at § of 5-7.) the Doc. 6.7 22-1.) he $2,152.50 in hours in Plaintiff The Court has recover provided reviewed the therefore, no evidence the Court fees of $2,152,50. III. For to 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). the resulting and finds the fees reasonable in this case; awards attorneys' seeks Reemsnyder, evidence case, 22 costs. 47 Ronald provides (Doc. Plaintiff foregoing CONCLUSION reasons, Plaintiff's Motion Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. for Default In particular, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Martin and Surreal. The Court 10 GRANTS Plaintiff's request for statutory damages of $1,800.00 and attorneys' fees of $2,152.50. The enhanced Court Accordingly, The DENIES the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff's Court the awards request Plaintiff for a total of Clerk to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT damages. $3,952.00. in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Martin and 3 Owners Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Surreal at Surrey. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Beck will remain pending. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this /ffs^day of May 2016. HALL UNITED STATES W 11 DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
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.
