United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
THE BOIL & ROUX KITCHEN, LLC D/B/A BOIL & ROUX AND MAURICE WALKER
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
the Court is the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc.
10) filed by Plaintiff, J&J Sports Productions,
Inc. Defendants, The Boil & Roux Kitchen, LLC and Maurice
Walker did not file an opposition to the motion. Jurisdiction
is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
owns and owned the exclusive rights to the closed circuit
television event, "The Fight of the Century"
Floyd May weather, Jr. v. Manny Pacquiao Championship Fight
Program (the "Program"). (Doc. 10-1 at p. 1).
Defendants are an LLC, which operates a restaurant and bar,
and its member that allegedly broadcast the Program on May
2, 2015, without first purchasing a $3, 000 business
license from Plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 2-3). According
to Plaintiffs investigator, Defendants advertised on Facebook
that they would show the Program, charge a $20 cover, and
broadcast the Program on six television. (Doc. 10-6 at p. 1).
Approximately 100 people were in the venue at the time of the
result, Plaintiff filed suit seeking statutory damages and
attorneys' fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 605,
which provides a private right of action for the interception
and publishing of radio communications; § 553(c), which
prohibits the interception or reception of communications
offered over a cable system; and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511,
2520, which prohibit and provide a private right of action
for the interception or reception of a wire, oral, or
electronic communications. (Doc. 1 p. 8, 11). Plaintiffs
properly served summons on Defendants on May 23, 2017. (Docs.
5, 6). Defendants did not respond, and accordingly, the Clerk
of Court entered a default in this action. (Doc. 8).
service of a summons triggers a duty to respond to a
complaint and a failure to respond may result in the entry of
default or default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55. Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 167 F.3d 933, 937-39 (5th Cir. 1999). When a party
establishes by affidavit or some other method that there has
been a default, the Clerk of Court will enter the default.
N.Y.Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th
Cir. 1996). Once there has been an entry of default, the
plaintiff may apply to the Court for a default judgment.
judgments are usually disfavored under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead
& Sav. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989).
A default judgment is considered to be a drastic remedy that
should only be available "when the adversary process has
been halted because of an essentially unresponsive
party." Id. (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp.
u. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d689, 691
(D.C. Cir. 1970)). Therefore, a party is not entitled to a
default judgment, even where the defendant is technically in
default. Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th
determining whether a default judgment should be entered, the
Fifth Circuit has developed a two-part test. Taylor v.
City of Baton Rouge, 39 F.Supp.3d 807, 813 (M.D. La.
2014). First, the Court must determine whether the entry of
default judgment is appropriate under the circumstances,
Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir.
1998). Factors relevant to this determination include: (1)
whether there are material issues of fact at issue; (2)
whether there has been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the
grounds for default have been clearly established; (4)
whether the default was caused by excusable neglect or good
faith mistake; (5) the harshness of default judgment; and (6)
whether the court would think itself obliged to set aside the
default on a motion by Defendant. Id. Second, the
Court must assess the merits of Plaintiff s claims and find a
viable claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous.
Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).
Appropriateness of Default Judgment
Court finds that default judgment is appropriate under the
circumstances of this case and that Plaintiff has stated a
viable claim for relief. Default Judgment is appropriate
because Defendants failed to file a proper and timely answer
and have failed to produce evidence to show that the failure
to file an answer resulted from "good faith mistake or
excusable neglect." See Lindsey, 161 F.3d at
893. Additionally, Defendants' failure to file an
opposition to the motion or otherwise defend the instant suit
for more than eight months mitigates the harshness of a
default judgment. Lastly, the Court is not aware of any facts
that would constitute "good cause" to set aside
default judgment if Defendants filed a motion requesting
Viable Claim for Relief
Court finds that Plaintiffs uncontested statement of material
facts (Doc. 10-1) and attached supporting documents (Docs.
10-3 through 10-18) establish a viable claim for relief.
Specifically, the Court finds that despite failing to acquire
a business license for the Program, Defendants not only
showed the fight, but also advertised that they would