Opinion
01 Civ. 0329 (GBD) (AJP)
December 17, 2003
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 12, 2003, Judge Daniels referred this matter to me for an inquest after entering a default judgment for plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. against defendants (1) Bernadina Soto and Salinas Restaurant, and (2) Rafael Rojas and Le Mezquita Restaurant. (Dkt. No. 12: 11/12/03 Default Judgment.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court should enter judgment for plaintiff against defendants Soto/Salinas Restaurant for damages of $20,000 and costs of $90, and against defendants Rojas/Le Mezquita Restaurant in the same amounts.
FACTS
"Where, as here, 'the court determines that defendant is in default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.'" Chen v. Jenna Lane, Inc., 30 F. Supp.2d 622, 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Carter, DJ. Peck, M.J.) (quoting 10A C. Wright, A. Miller M. Kane,Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 3d § 2688 at 58-59 (3d ed. 1998)).
Accord, e.g., Pacific Westeel. Inc. v. D R Installation, 01 Civ. 0293, 2003 WL 2239512 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Medical Econ. Co. v.The HealthExchange, Inc., 01 Civ. 11262, 2003 WL 22346391 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Trustees of the Elevator Div. Ret. Benefit Plan v. Premier Elevator Co., 03 Civ. 2703, 2003 WL 22127912 at*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2003); Cablevision Svs. New York City Corp. v. Torres, 02 Civ. 7602, 2003 WL 22078938 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Eastern Freight Ways v. Eastern Motor Freight, 02 Civ. 3138, 2003 WL 21540382 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2003) (Peck, M.J.), report rec. adopted as modified on other grounds, 2003 WL 21921270 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2003); Schruefer v. Winthorpe Grant, Inc., 99 Civ. 9365, 2003 WL 21511157 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Joy Lud Distribs. Int'l. Inc. v.Contini, 00 Civ. 5011, 2003 WL 554616 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2003) (Peck, M.J.); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v.Brown, 01 Civ. 9155, 2002 WL 1226863 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2002) (Peck, M.J.); King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v.Drencia Rest. Corp., 01 Civ. 9777, 2002 WL 1000284 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2002) (Peck, M.J.); Ainbinder v. Bernice Mining Contracting, Inc., 01 Civ. 2492, 2002 WL 461576 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2002) (Peck, M.J.): Sterling Nat'l Bank v.A-1 Hotels Int'l. Inc., 00 Civ. 7352, 2002 WL 461574 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2002) (Peck, M.J.); King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v. Papacito Lidia Luncheonette, Inc., 01 Civ. 7575, 2001 WL 1558269 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2001) (Peck, M.J.); Trustees of the Pension Welfare Funds of the Moving Picture Mach. Operators Union, Local 306 v. Gordon's Film Co. (New York) Int'l Inc., 00 Civ. 8452, 2001 WL 1415145 at* 1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13.2001) (Peck. M.J.): Coast To Coast Fabrics, Inc. v. Tracy Evans, Ltd., 00 Civ. 4417, 2001 WL 5037 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2001) (Peck, M.J.): Starbucks Corp. v. Morgan, 99 Civ. 1404, 2000 WL949665 at* 1 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2000) (Peck, M.J.);King Vision Pav-Per-View. Ltd. v. New Paradise Rest., 99 Civ. 10020, 2000 WL 378053 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2000) (Peck, M.J.);Independent Nat'l Distrib., Inc. v. Black Rain Communications, Inc., 94 Civ. 8464, 1996 WL 238401 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 1996) (Keenan, D.J. Peck, M.J.).
The Verified Complaint alleges that each defendant violated the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 553 and 605, by intercepting, receiving, descrambling and exhibiting the September 18, 1999 pay-per-view boxing match between DeLaHoya and Trinidad (and all "undercard bouts") without license or permission from plaintiff. (See generally Dkt. No. 1: Compl.) Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $110,000 from each defendantplus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 8:6/11/01 Notice of Motion; 6/7/01 "Statement for Judgment;" Lonstein 12/1/03 Aff. ¶¶ 11, 23-25.)
Plaintiff's investigator's reports show that on September 18, 1999, there were 100 people (in a restaurant with a capacity of 150 people) in Le Mezquita Restaurant, and 10 people (in a restaurant with a capacity of 70 people) in Salinas Restaurant. (Dkt. No. 9: Lonstein 6/7/01 Aff. Ex. C: Investigator Affs.)
By order dated November 25, 2003, I directed the parties to submit papers on the inquest:
Plaintiff is to provide any additional submissions in support of damages by December 5, 2003. Plaintiff is advised to read my prior decisions in similar cases (involving, inter alia, King Vision), available on WestLaw. Defendants are to submit any papers in opposition by December 12, 2003.
(Dkt. No. 14: 11/25/03 Order.) Defendants have not submitted any papers in opposition to the inquest, and the time to do so has passed.
ANALYSIS
Inquest DamagesThe Second Circuit has approved the holding of an inquest by affidavit, without an in-person court hearing, "'as long as [the Court has] ensured that there was a basis for the damages specified in the default judgment.'" Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v.Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotingFustok v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)).
Accord, e.g., cases cited in fn.1 above;see also, e.g., Chen v. Jenna Lane, Inc., 30 F. Supp.2d 622, 624 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Carter, DJ. Peck, M.J.);Semi Conductor Materials, Inc. v. Agriculture Inputs Corp., 96 Civ. 7902, 1998 WL 388503 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 1998) (Kaplan, D. J. Peck, M.J.).
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)-(ii), the Court may award statutory damages of between $1,000 and $10,000, and where the violation is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage, additional damages of up to $100,000. For violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, the Court may award statutory damages of $250 to $10,000, and may increase the amount to up to $50,000 for willful violations committed for purposes of commercial advantage. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii), (B). See generally, e.g., Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Torres, 02 Civ. 7602, 2003 WL 22078938 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2003) (Peck, M.J.): King Vision Pay-Per-View Corp. v. Drencia Rest. Corp., 01 Civ. 9777, 2002 WL 1000284 at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2002) (Peck, M.J.); King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v. Papacito Lidia Luncheonette, Inc., 01 Civ. 7575, 2001 WL 1558269 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2001) (Peck, M.J.);King Vision Pay-Per-View. Ltd. v. New Paradise Rest., 99 Civ. 10020, 2000 WL 378053 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2000) (Peck, M.J.).
A plaintiff cannot recover under both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and § 553. See, e.g., Cablevision Svs. New York City Corp. v. Torres, 2003 WL 22078938 at *3; King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v. Drencia Rest. Corp., 2002 WL 1000284 at *2; King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v. Papacito Lidia Luncheonette, Inc., 2001 WL 1558269 at *2: King Vision Pav-Per-View, Ltd. v. New Paradise Rest., 2000 WL 378053 at *2. Accordingly, plaintiff here has elected to recover statutory damages under § 605. (See, e.g., Lonstein 12/1/03 Aff. ¶¶ 11, 25.)
Accord, e.g., Int'l Cablevision Inc. v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 929, 117 S.Ct. 298 (1996); Time Warner Cable v. Evans, 00 Civ. 1385, 2001 WL 1241756 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2001) ("When a court determines that a defendant's conduct has violated both § 605 and § 553 of the Communications Act, a plaintiff may recover damages only under one of those sections.");Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Cruz, 00 Civ. 5931, 2001 WL 1388155 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2001), report rec. adopted, 2001 WL 951730 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2001);Kingvision Pav-Per-View, Ltd. v. Jasper Grocery, 152 F. Supp.2d 438, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001): Cablevision Svs. New York City Corp. v. Flores, 00 Civ. 5935, 2001 WL 761085 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2001); Time Warner Cable v.Barbosa, 98 Civ. 3522, 2001 WL 118608 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2001), report rec. adopted, 2001 WL 180366 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2001); see also, e.g., Time Warner Cable v. Barnes, 13 F. Supp.2d 543, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 1998);TWC Cable Partners v. Multipurpose Elecs. Int'l. Inc., No. CV-97-2568, 1997 WL 833471 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 1997);New Contenders, Inc. v. Diaz Seafood Corp., 96 Civ. 4701, 1997 WL 538827 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 1997): Time Warner Cable v. Olmo, 977 F. Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.N.Y. 1997);Time Warner Cable v. Taco Rapido Rest., 988 F. Supp. 107, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). But see King Vision Pay-Per-View v.Las Cazuelas Mexican Rest., 99 Civ. 10041, 2000 WL 264004 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2000) (awarding damages under both § 553 and § 605). Even if the Court could award damages under both § 605 and § 553, the Court would decline to do so here, since it would result in an award that is excessive under the circumstances.
Plaintiff here seeks $110,000 from each defendant, i.e., the maximum for a willful violation. (See, e.g., Lonstein 12/1/03 Aff. ¶¶ 11, 25.) The Court's November 25, 2003 Order directed plaintiff's counsel to read my prior decisions in this area. (See Dkt. No. 14:11/25/03 Order, quoted at page 3 above.) Plaintiff's recent submissions, however, chose to ignore my prior decisions. In similar cases involving default judgments for King Vision against similar establishments showing fights or other special, scrambled pay-per-view events without a license, the Court has awarded $20,000 in statutory damages.See King Vision Pay-Per-View Corp. v. Drencia Rest. Corp., 2002 WL 1000284 at *2: King Vision Pav-Per-View Corp. v. Papacita Lidia Luncheonette, Inc., 2001 WL 1558269 at *2; King Vision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. New Paradise Rest., 2000 WL 378053 at *2.
This Court sees no reason — and plaintiff has not given it any reason — to deviate from my prior decisions. Accordingly, judgment should be entered for plaintiff against (1) defendants Soto and Salinas Restaurant, jointly and severally, for $20,000, and (2) defendants Rojas and Le Mezquita Restaurant, jointly and severally, for $20,000. Attorneys' Fees
Because of the total statutory damage award of $40,000, the Court in its discretion declines to award prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees of $1,925. (See Lonstein 12/1/03 Aff. ¶ 23 Ex. B.) While Ms. Lonstein's hourly rate of $175 appears reasonable, a review of the billing entries shows that she spent much of her eleven hours on clerical tasks (e.g., 12/1/03 entry for 2.25 hours that includes photocopying and mailing of inquest brief). In addition, as in King Vision Pay-Per-View Corp. v.Drencia Rest. Corp., 2002 WL 1000284 at *2, I decline to award attorney fees where counsel — here, after notice — ignores the Court's prior decisions in similar cases.
Costs
Plaintiff seeks costs of $555 for: filing fees ($250), service of process ($30) and investigative fees ($275). (Lonstein 12/1/03 Aff. ¶ 24.) The Court's filing fee, however, is only $150, and there is no authority to award "investigative fees" as costs. Thus, the Court allows costs of $180, i.e., $90 as to each defendant group.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should enter judgment for plaintiff against (1) defendants Soto and Salinas, jointly and severally, for $20,000 in damages and $90 in costs, and (2) defendants Rojas and Le Mezquita Restaurant, jointly and severally, for $20,000 in damages and $90 in costs.FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections (and any responses to objections) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable George B. Daniels, 40 Centre Street, Room 410, and to my chambers, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1370. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Daniels. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v.Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985): IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 822, 115 S.Ct. 86 (1994);Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993);Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir.),cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1038, 113 S.Ct. 825 (1992);Small v. Secretary of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir. 1988):McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).