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.

J & J Productions, Inc. v. Strange Clouds Hookah Lounge, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 8, 2018

J & J PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
STRANGE CLOUDS HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [#12] AND CANCELING HEARING

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, J & J Sports Productions, Inc., filed the instant lawsuit on April 25, 2017 alleging that Defendants, Strange Clouds Hookah Lounge and Michael Kassab, have violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq. and the Cable and Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, as amended 47 U.S.C. § 553 et seq., for illegally broadcasting a boxing match on May 3, 2014. Defendants have failed to appear and otherwise defend the instant action.

         Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, filed on December 11, 2017. Plaintiff seeks $110, 000.00 in statutory damages, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs. For the reasons that follow, the Court will enter a default judgment in the amount of $5, 441.86.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to contract, it has the exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Marcos Reina Maidana WBC Welterweight Championship Fight Program (hereinafter the “Program”) broadcast on May 3, 2014. Plaintiff entered into several sublicensing agreements with various commercial entities granting said entities limited rights to publicly exhibit the Program to the patrons of their respective establishments. The Program originated via a satellite uplink and was subsequently retransmitted to cable systems and satellite companies via satellite signal.

         Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants had full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted; however they intercepted and displayed the Program to the patrons of Defendant Strange Clouds Hookah Lounge. The cost of the Program if the Defendants had legally purchased the rights to display it totals $3, 000.00.

         On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendants with the Summons and copy of the Complaint in this matter. Defendants have failed to file an Answer to the Complaint or otherwise defend this action. On November 4, 2017, Plaintiff requested that the clerk enter a default against Michael Kassab and Strange Clouds Hookah Lounge, Inc. and the clerk entered a default against these Defendants on November 6, 2017.

         III. LAW & ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review for Default Judgment

         Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the entry of judgment by default against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend against an action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). To obtain judgment by default, the plaintiff must first request a default from the clerk pursuant to Rule 55(a). Shepard Claims Servs., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986). “[E]ntry of a default against a defendant establishes the defendant's liability.” Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 299 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Goldman, Antonetti, Ferraiuoli, Axtmayer & Hertell v. Medfit Int'l, Inc., 982 F.2d 686, 693 (1st Cir. 1993)). “There is no question that, default having been entered, each of [plaintiff's] allegations of fact must be taken as true and each of its [ ] claims must be considered established as a matter of law.” Id.

         However, a clerk's entry of default “on well-pleaded allegations establishes only defendant's liability; plaintiff must still establish the extent of damages.” Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kelley v. Carr, 567 F.Supp. 831, 841 (W.D. Mich. 1983)). “Where damages are unliquidated a default admits only defendant's liability and the amount of damages must be proved.” Antoine, 66 F.3d at 110.

         B. Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 553 and § 605

         Plaintiff's Complaint, Motion and Exhibits demonstrate that Defendants have violated § 553 and § 605. The Cable and Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 prohibits intercepting, receiving or assisting in the interception or receipt of communications services offered over a cable system, unless authorized to do so by a cable operator. See 47 U.S.C. ยง 553(a)(1). The Communication Act of 1934 applies to satellite transmissions and prohibits receiving, transmitting, or assisting in the transmission of any communication by wire or radio and from divulging or publishing ...


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.