Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
J & J Sports Productions Inc. v. Vazquez
United States District Court, D. Arizona
November 8, 2017
J & J Sports Productions Incorporated, Plaintiff,
Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez, et al., Defendants.
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment. (Doc. 19). The Clerk of the Court entered default
against Defendant Ringside Pub and Grill LLC on July 3, 2017
and against Defendant Abelardo Hurtado Vazquez on August 15,
2017. (Docs. 14 and 18).
case arises from Defendants showing a pay-per-view fight in
Defendants' commercial establishment without paying for
the fight. (Doc. 19 at 2-3). Plaintiff owned the rights to
the fight in question. (Doc. 19 at 2).
Court in this District has analyzed a motion for default in
another case filed by this same Plaintiff as follows:
Once a party's default has been entered, the district
court has discretion to grant default judgment against that
party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v.
Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). Factors the
court may consider in deciding whether to grant default
judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to the
plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claim, (3) the sufficiency
of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the
possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6)
whether default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the
policy favoring a decision on the merits. Eitel v.
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72. In applying the
Eitel factors, “the factual allegations of the
complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages,
will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin.
Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1977).
A. Possible Prejudice to Plaintiff.
The first Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting
Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff served process on
Defendants on April 14, 2015. Docs. 13, 14. Defendants have
not answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in this
action. If Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is not
granted, Plaintiff “will likely be without other
recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal.
Security Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal.
B. The Merits of Plaintiff s Claims and the
Sufficiency of the Complaint.
The second and third Eitel factors favor a default
judgment where the complaint sufficiently states a claim for
relief. See PepsioCo, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d at 1175.
Plaintiff seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. § 605.1
“[T]o be held liable for a violation of section 605, a
defendant must be shown to have (1) intercepted or aided the
interception of, and (2) divulged or published, or aided the
divulging or publishing of, a communication transmitted by
the plaintiff.” Nat'l Subscription Television
v. S & H TV, 644 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir.1981).
Section 605 applies to satellite television signals.
DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844
(9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants
willfully intercepted and displayed the licensed program on
March 8, 2014. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15-21. Plaintiff's
allegations are supported by the affidavits of two
investigators who visited La Rubia y La Morena and saw the
program being displayed on television screens. Doc. 18-3. One
of these investigators noted that approximately forty patrons
were watching the program on four television screens.
Id. at 7. Plaintiff has stated a claim for a willful
violation of section 605. [footnote omitted] The second and
third factors favor a default judgment.
C. The Amount of Money at Stake.
Under the fourth Eitel factor, the Court considers
the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness
of the defendants' conduct. Plaintiff seeks ...
Buy This Entire Record For