Case: 12-11604 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11604
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-03882-CAP
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff - Counter
Defendant - Appellee,
versus
TAQUERIA JALISCO, INC.,
d.b.a. Taqueria Jalisco,
JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ,
Defendants - Counter
Claimants - Appellants,
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants - Counter
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 16, 2012)
Case: 12-11604 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an action for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605. J & J Sports
Productions, Inc. (“J & J”) sued Taqueria Jalisco, Inc. (“Taqueria”) and its
manager, Juan Carlos Lopez, for unlawfully exhibiting a boxing program to which
J & J owns the exclusive nationwide distribution rights. The material facts are not
in dispute. See Order dated December 30, 2011 at 2. J & J had exclusive rights to
the Oscar de la Hoya v, Manny Pacquiao–Welterweight Championship Fight
Program which took place on December 6, 2008; Taqueria displayed the program
at its restaurant that day; Taqueria and Lopez did not pay a commercial licensing
fee to show the program (but Lopez paid the residential fee for the program);
Taqueria and Lopez received the program via satellite signal; and the program was
shown on two screens to patrons at the restaurant. Since the material facts were
not in dispute, the District Court ruled that J & J were entitled to summary
judgment. Id. at 6.1 The court’s order directed J & J to submit proof of its
damages and gave the defendants an opportunity to respond. After reviewing the
parties’ submissions, the court, in an order dated February 24, 2012, awarded J & J
1
The court also granted J&J summary judgment on Taqueria’s counterclaim for state and
federal RICO violations and fraud in an order dated February 29, 2012. This decision is not
before us in this appeal.
2
Case: 12-11604 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 3 of 4
$7,500 in statutory damages, see 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II),2 $50,000 in
enhanced statutory damages,3 and $13,255 in attorney’s fees. The court thereafter
entered judgment for J & J against the defendants in the foregoing amounts,
$70,755.
Taqueria and Lopez appeal the court’s judgment, arguing that (1) they were
entitled to a jury trial with respect to the statutory damages, Appellants’ Br. at 12;
(2) because J & J failed to prove “actual damages” (J&J represented to the court
that it could not quantify its actual loss), J & J could not “demonstrate an ‘injury in
fact’”, as required by Article III of the Constitution. and therefore “lacked standing
to pursue [its] claims”, id. at 13; (3) J & J failed to prove its entitlement to the
enhanced statutory damages, id. at 18; and (4) the court “abused its discretion
when it allowed [J & J] to amend the complaint to include a known party,” i.e.,
Lopez, id. at 20. For the reasons stated in the District Court’s orders of December
30, 2011, and February 24, 2012, these arguments lack merit. The District Court’s
judgment is accordingly
2
J & J elected to receive statutory rather than actual damages. See Order, February 24,
2012. Section 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) authorizes damages for each violation of not less than $1,000
nor more than $10,000.
3
If the court finds that the violation was committed “willfully and for purposes of direct
or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” it may award enhanced damages not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
3
Case: 12-11604 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4