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.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garcia-Nunez

United States District Court, D. Oregon

June 11, 2019

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Marx Garcia-Nunez, et al. Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael J. McShane United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. moves this Court for a default judgment and damages pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Pl.'s Mot. 1-2, ECF No. 14. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Marx Garcia-Nunez and La Roquita Mexican Restaurant, Inc.-operating as La Rockita-on August 7, 2018. Pl.'s Compl. 1-2, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Garcia-Nunez, by himself or through his employees, directed or permitted La Rockita to intercept, broadcast, and/or publish the Mayweather v. McGregor Match (the “Broadcast”) on August 26, 2017. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff had exclusive distribution and public performance rights for the Broadcast and entered into sublicensing agreements with various entities in the State of Oregon allowing them to publicly exhibit the Broadcast. Id. at 4-5. Defendants did not enter into such an agreement. See Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willingly and unlawfully intercepted, received, and exhibited the program in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq. and 47 17 U.S.C. § 504, et seq. Id. at 7-8.

         Plaintiff seeks $10, 000 in statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), $25, 000 in enhanced statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), $10, 000 in statutory damages under § 504(c)(1), $30, 000 in enhanced statutory damages under § 504(c)(2), and $3, 972.50 in attorney's fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) and 17 U.S.C. § 505. Pl's Mot. 2.

         Plaintiff effectuated service on Defendants on August 31, 2018. ECF Nos. 10 and 11. Plaintiff then filed and served on Defendants a Motion for Entry of Default on February 5, 2019. ECF No. 12. This Court granted Plaintiff's Motion on March 19, 2019. ECF No. 13. Defendants have not filed any responsive pleadings or notice of intent to appear. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment on April 19, 2019. ECF No. 14.

         STANDARDS

         A defendant must file a responsive pleading within 21 days of being served, or within 60 days if the defendant has timely waived service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1). “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).

         After entering an order of default, the district court has discretion to issue a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 937 (2008). This Court has "considerable leeway as to what it may require as a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment." TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (footnote omitted). This Court may take the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true, other than the amount of damages. Id. at 917-18 (citation omitted); Huynh, 503 F.3d at 854 (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). “However, a ‘defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.'” Huynh, 503 F.3d at 854 (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Entry of Default Judgment

         In considering an entry of default judgment, this Court examines the seven Eitel factors:

(1) [T]he 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 ...

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.