United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
A. RUSSO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Elizabeth Sonia Garcia, Jose de Jesus Angulo Guzman, and El
Agave Grill Restaurant, LLC (“El Agave”) move for
summary judgment on plaintiff J & J Sports Productions,
Inc.'s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Oral argument was held on February 9, 2018. For the reasons
set forth below, defendants' motion should be denied.
April 23, 2015, plaintiff obtained the exclusive nationwide
commercial rights to distribute “‘The Fight of
the Century' Floyd Maywether Jr. v. Manny Pacquiano
Championship Fight” (“the program”).
Compl. ¶ 22 (doc. 1). Plaintiff then entered
into sublicensing agreements with various entities granting
those entities certain rights in relation to the program.
Id. at ¶ 23. One of those entities was Dish
Network, LLC (“Dish”), a satellite television
service provider. J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Garcia, No. 6:17-cv-00673-JR, 2017 WL 6887098, at *2 (D.
Or. Dec. 6, 2017), adopted by 2018 WL 358503 (D. Or.
Jan. 10, 2018).
unspecified time, Guzman entered into a contract with Dish
pursuant to which Dish would provide residential television
services. Id.; Garcia Decl. ¶ 2 (doc.
34-5). Dish technicians installed its equipment at El Agave,
a restaurant located in Woodburn, Oregon, and defendants paid
Dish for its services out of a business account. Garcia
Decl. ¶¶ Defendants assert Dish never informed
them that they were using the wrong type of account for a
restaurant. Id. In essence, defendants maintain they
did not intend to use a residential Dish account instead of a
business account. Id.
2, 2015, El Agave displayed the program, which they purchased
using Guzman's residential Dish account. Id. at
¶ 3; Compl. ¶ 25 (doc. 1). Defendants
did not advertise that El Agave would show the program or
charge for admission. Garcia Decl. ¶ 4 (doc.
April 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court
against defendants alleging federal claims pursuant to 47
U.S.C. § 553 and 47 U.S.C. § 605, as well as
trespass to chattel under Oregon law. On August 17, 2017,
defendants filed a third-party complaint against Dish,
asserting several Oregon common law claims premised on the
theory that Dish was negligent in setting up El Agave's
television account and should therefore be liable for any
alleged violation of plaintiff's rights. Third-party
Compl. ¶¶ 12-31, 35-42 (doc. 24). On
October 16, 2017, Dish moved to dismiss defendants'
third-party claims. On November 17, 2017, defendants filed
the present motion for summary judgment. On January 10, 2018,
this Court granted Dish's motion and defendants
subsequently dismissed their claims against Dish. See
generally J & J Sports, 2017 WL 6887098.
judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on
file, if any, show “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P
56(a). Substantive law on an issue determines the
materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Pac.
Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
1987). Whether the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party determines the authenticity of the dispute.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party
shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify
facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at
rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary
judgment motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the
existence of genuine issues of material fact should be
resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to
be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W.
Elec., 809 F.2d at 630.
reaching the merits of defendants' motion, the Court must
resolve the parties' conferral dispute and
plaintiff's evidentiary objections.