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. Espinoza

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 16, 2013

G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE ESPINOZA, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the application of Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC for a default judgment against Defendant Jose Espinoza. See generally Application for Default Judgment ("Appl.") (dkt. 20). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully intercepted and exhibited a boxing match and therefore owes Plaintiff damages under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 and for conversion. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application and awards damages in the amount of $1, 850.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a distributor of sports and entertainment programming that owned the commercial exhibition rights to the "Strikeforce: Melendez v. Masdival" telecast ("the Program"). Plaintiff required commercial establishments to pay a licensing fee in order to display the Program to its patrons. See Compl. ¶ 15 (dkt. 1), Gagliardi Decl. ¶ 8 (dkt. 21). Based on its capacity of 65 persons, the fee for Defendant's establishment would have been $1, 600. Gagliardi Decl. ¶ 8. Defendant did not pay the licensing fee, Compl. ¶ 17, but Plaintiff's investigator observed the program at Defendant's establishment. See Kaplan Aff. (dkt. 20-3). The investigator noted that there was no cover charge and during three separate headcounts there were "2/0/0" patrons in the establishment, respectively.[1] Id . Plaintiff's investigator did not determine whether the transmission was via cable or satellite, whether Defendant advertised the Program's broadcast, or whether Defendant raised the prices in the establishment during the Program's broadcast.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on December 14, 2012. See Compl. Defendant was served on February 27, 2013 and was required to answer by March 20, 2013. See Summons (dkt. 8). Defendant did not appear, and the Clerk entered default on May 16, 2013. See Entry of Default (dkt. 18). Plaintiff's complaint alleges four causes of action, under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553[2] and 605, [3] state law conversion, and California Business and Professions Code section 17200, but the application for default judgment requests damages based only on the 47 U.S.C. § 605 and conversion claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Default

Courts generally disfavor default judgments on the grounds that cases should ordinarily be decided on the merits. Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A. , 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985). However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the Court may enter a default judgment upon motion by the Plaintiff after entry of default by the Clerk. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). Whether to grant an application for default judgment is within the discretion of the trial court. See Eitel v. McCool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors that may guide the court in deciding whether to enter default judgment include:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's 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 excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Id. at 1471-72.

Upon an entry of default by the clerk, the factual allegations of the plaintiff's complaint are taken as true, except those relating to the amount of damages. See Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp. , 528 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2008).

B. Damages

A plaintiff is required to prove all damages sought in the complaint. See TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal , 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, no relief sought may be different in kind, or exceed in amount, than that which is demanded in the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). If the facts necessary to determine the damages are not contained in the pleadings, or are legally insufficient, they ...


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.