Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. John P. Quach

February 23, 2011

G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN P. QUACH, AND THIEN TRAN A/K/A
HIEN TRAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AM THAM, AND LIEM V. NGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AM THAM,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant Liem V. Ngo, doing business as Am Tham ("Defendant"), after Defendant failed to appear or otherwise respond to the Summons and Complaint within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Before the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC's motion for default judgment. Defendant, not having appeared in this action to date, has not opposed the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is GRANTED.

program "Strikeforce: Featuring Frank Shamrock v. Nick Diaz" ("Program"), originally broadcast 4 nationwide on April 11, 2009. First Amended Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 11. The program was unlawfully intercepted and exhibited by Defendant, at his commercial establishment ("Am Tham") located in Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, as well 8 as violations of California law against conversion and California Business and Professions Code 47 U.S.C. § 605 and for conversion.

Plaintiff requests $10,000 in statutory damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), and $100,000 in enhanced damages for willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(b)(iii). Finally, with respect to its conversion claim, Plaintiff seeks $1,600, the amount

Defendant would have been required to pay had he ordered the "Program" from Plaintiff. Satisfied 16 of its subject matter jurisdiction (federal statutes at issue) and personal jurisdiction (Defendant resides and does business in California), the Court shall proceed to review Plaintiff's motion for 18 default judgment.

22 answer a complaint, the plaintiff may move the court for an entry of default judgment. The grant 23 of a default judgment is within the discretion of the court. Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 24 (9th Cir. 1986). In exercising discretion to enter default judgment, the court should consider the 25 following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's 26 substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to

I.Background

Plaintiff alleges that it owns exclusive commercial distribution rights to the pay-per-view San Jose, California. FAC ¶ 12. On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action for violations of the § 17200. In the pending motion for default judgment, however, Plaintiff seeks damages only under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). Plaintiff also seeks costs and attorney fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

II.Discussion

A.Default Judgment

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), when the defendant fails to timely excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

will be prejudiced if default judgment is not entered. Plaintiff has presented proof of adequate 5 service of process, and Defendant has failed to timely answer, leading the Clerk of Court to enter 6 default against Defendant. See Dkt. Nos. 25-27. Because Defendant has refused to take part in the 7 litigation, Plaintiff will be denied the right to adjudicate its claims and obtain relief if default 8 judgment is not granted. Second, Defendant has not presented a defense or otherwise 9 communicated with the Court. Accordingly, there is no indication that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.