G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Villegas ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC, No. CV-22-01892-PHX-ROS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Israel Higuera Villegas, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendants Israel Villegas and Veronica Valenzuela are the sole members of an 16 LLC. That LLC allegedly owns and operates a taco shop. Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit 17 Events LLC had the “exclusive commercial exhibition licensing rights” to a boxing match 18 on November 6, 2021. Defendants allegedly displayed that boxing match on six televisions 19 at the taco shop without paying the appropriate fee to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges 20 claims under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and the Cable & Television 21 Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553. Plaintiff served 22 Defendants but Defendants did not respond. Defendants’ default was entered, and Plaintiff 23 now seeks default judgment on its claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605. (Doc. 16-1 at 4). The 24 complaint does not establish Defendants’ liability under that statute. Therefore, the motion 25 for default judgment will be denied. 26 In general, § 553 addresses intercepting communications that are being transmitted 27 “over a cable system” while § 605 addresses intercepting communications that are being 28 transmitted by way of radio communications, such as satellite televisions signals. G & G 1 Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Liu, 45 F.4th 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 2022). In other words, if 2 Defendants received the television signal of the boxing match through a cable tv system, § 3 553 might apply. If Defendants received the signal through a satellite television service, § 4 605 might apply. See, e.g., J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Mandell Fam. Ventures, L.L.C., 751 5 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding “§ 605 does not apply to [the] receipt of cable 6 communications”). Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks judgment solely on its 7 § 605 claim. Thus, Plaintiff needed to allege Defendants received the signal through a 8 satellite service. Plaintiff did not do so. 9 According to the complaint, Defendants or their employees “intentionally 10 intercepted, received, and published” the signal of the boxing match at the taco shop. (Doc. 11 1 at 5). The broadcast of the boxing match allegedly “originated via satellite uplink and 12 was subsequently re-transmitted to cable systems and satellite companies via satellite 13 signal to Plaintiff’s lawful sub-licensees.” (Doc. 1 at 7). These allegations do not establish 14 which type of signal—i.e., cable or satellite—Defendants allegedly illegally intercepted 15 and displayed. 16 Without factual allegations regarding Defendants’ reception of the signal, default 17 judgment cannot be granted. “[N]ecessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims 18 which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. 19 Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). The request for default judgment will be denied. 20 Plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint identifying the type of signal 21 Defendants allegedly intercepted and displayed.1 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16) is DENIED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than May 19, 2023, Plaintiff shall file an 25 1 The motion for default judgment appears to argue the boxing match was initially sent to 26 “cable and satellite companies” by way of a “satellite uplink” such that a subsequent interception and display of the signal, even if the individual received the transmission via 27 a cable system, would be enough to trigger liability. (Doc. 16-1 at 4). Plaintiff cites no support for this argument and at least three circuit have explicitly rejected it. See J&J 28 Sports Prods., Inc. v. Mandell Fam. Ventures, L.L.C., 751 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing opinions from Third and Seventh Circuits). || amended complaint. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without || prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must file a new motion for default judgment within fourteen days of the date the amended 5 || complaint is filed. 6 Dated this 8th day of May, 2023. 7 fo - 8 — . 10 Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-