Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Reign Nightclub, LLC et al, No. 7:2021cv00469 - Document 23 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER regarding 22 Motion for Default Judgment.(Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(klopez, 7)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Reign Nightclub, LLC et al Doc. 23 Case 7:21-cv-00469 Document 23 Filed on 06/27/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a Integrated Sports Media, Plaintiff, VS. REIGN NIGHTCLUB, LLC d/b/a Reign Nightclub; and ERNESTO A. GUAJARDO, Defendants. June 27, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:21-cv-00469 § § § § § § OPINION AND ORDER The Court now considers “Plaintiff, Innovative Sports Management, Inc.’s Motion for Final Default Judgment Against Defendants and Supporting Brief.”1 The Court has already granted,2 and the Clerk of the Court has already entered,3 default against both Defendants, so Plaintiff’s motion is submitted unopposed and considered as soon as practicable. 4 After considering the motion, record, and relevant authorities, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This is an antipiracy case brought under the Federal Communications Act of 1934.5 Plaintiff is a broadcast corporation that alleges it had the exclusive right to permit others to broadcast the December 15, 2018 Canelo Alvarez vs. Rocky Fielding boxing match telecast.6 Plaintiff alleges that the telecast “was electronically coded or encrypted” and not legally available 1 Dkt. No. 22. Dkt. Nos. 11, 20. 3 Dkt. Nos. 12, 21. 4 See LR7.2. 5 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–646. 6 Dkt. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 3. 2 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 7:21-cv-00469 Document 23 Filed on 06/27/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 or intended for free use without proper payment to and authorization from Plaintiff.7 Crucially, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “took affirmative steps to circumvent the commercial sublicensing requirement and unlawfully obtained the Program through an unauthorized cable signal, satellite signal, and/or internet stream.”8 This allegation, even if admitted by Defendants’ default,9 is inadequate to demonstrate Defendants’ liability. As this Court recently made clear, “the district court must first determine whether the defendant . . . broadcast the plaintiff's fight event via satellite, cable, or internet.”10 Allegations or evidence that the broadcast certainly must have been via one (or several) of those methods is insufficient.11 Plaintiff’s allegation is therefore insufficient, and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not save it. When attempting to establish Defendants’ liability, Plaintiff’s motion simply elides the issue of whether Defendants broadcast the event at their establishment via cable, satellite, or Internet.12 The Court is therefore unable to ascertain which statute—47 U.S.C. §§ 553 or 605—applies and cannot grant judgment under either one. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 27th day of June 2022. __________________________________ Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge 7 Id. at 3–4, ¶ 7. Id. at 4, ¶ 8 (emphasis added). 9 See Dkt. No. 22 at 4, ¶ 6 (“By virtue of their default, Defendants admitted to committing piracy against Plaintiff.”). 10 J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Los Taquitos Bar & Grill LLC, No. 7:19-cv-00160, 2020 WL 7481991, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2020) (Alvarez, J.). 11 See id. 12 See Dkt. No. 22 at 7, ¶ 9. 8 2/2
]]>
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.
