The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC moves for entry of default judgment in the 18 amount of $112,400.00 against Defendants Duy Trong Nguyen and Au Thi Le, both individually 19 and d/b/a Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant a/k/a Lighthouse Cafe, Inc. and against Lighthouse Cafe, 20 Inc. (d/b/a Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant) itself. Plaintiff seeks damages stemming from 21 Defendants' alleged violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and for conversion of Plaintiff's property. The 22 Court took Plaintiff's motion under submission on April 3, 2012. Having considered the moving 23 papers, the motion will be granted in part for the reasons discussed below.
4 purchased the commercial distribution rights to Strikeforce St. Louis: "Heavy Artillery," 5 (hereinafter the "Program") a fight that was telecasted on May 15, 2010. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff then 6 entered into sublicenses with third parties such as casinos, bars, and social clubs, allowing the 7 sublicensees to exhibit the Program to their patrons. Id. ¶ 12. The Program was broadcast in 8 interstate commerce, and only Plaintiff's sublicensees were entitled to screen the Program in 9 commercial establishments. Id. ¶¶ 11--12. 10 On the day of the broadcast, Gary Gravelyn, an investigator hired by Plaintiff, observed an Plaintiff is a distributor of sports and entertainment programming. Compl. ¶ 13. It exhibition of the Program in Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant. Decl. of Affiant at 2, May 17, 2011, 12 ECF No. 17 attachment no. 3. Defendants had not obtained a sublicense, so they were not entitled 13 to exhibit the Program. Compl. ¶ 14. Gravelyn entered the premises without paying a cover charge 14 and observed the Program on approximately sixteen televisions and one projector. Decl. of Affiant 15 at 2. Between 8:15 p.m. and 8:35 p.m., he performed three headcounts, noting the presence of 16 thirty-two or thirty-three patrons on each count. Id. at 2-3. The declaration indicates that the 17 capacity of Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant is 250 persons and that Gravelyn observed a satellite 18 dish but no cable box. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 12, 2011. After Defendants Duy Trong Nguyen, Au Thi Le, and Lighthouse Cafe, Inc. were served with process and failed to respond in a timely 22 manner, ECF Nos. 9--11, Plaintiff moved for entry of default and served the motion by mail. ECF 23 No. 12. The clerk entered default on September 8, 2011. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff moved for default 24 judgment on January 19, 2012, and has provided proof of service indicating that a copy of the 25 application for default judgment was mailed to each Defendant. ECF No. 17. Defendants did not 26 appear at the hearing. 27
4 jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction-when entry of judgment is sought against a party in default. 5 In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). 6
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the complaint seeks relief Courts have an affirmative duty to examine their own jurisdiction-both subject matter 7 pursuant to causes of action authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 & 605. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.8 Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 10 Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant is located at 1654 Burdette Drive, Suite 100, San Jose, California, 11 an address within this district. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Nguyen and Le 12 operate, maintain, control, and do business as Lighthouse Cafe & Restaurant. The cause of action 13 arises out of Defendants' alleged operation of the restaurant. Because the violation arises out of 14 Defendants' alleged business conduct in the district, personal jurisdiction over each of them is 15 proper. 16
Finally, the court must assess whether the Defendants were properly served with notice of 17 this action. Upon review of the certificates and affidavits of service, the court finds that Plaintiff 18 effected service of process in conformity with Fed R. Civ. P. 4(c) and ...