Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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 Sports Productions, Inc. v. The Boil & Roux Kitchen LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

February 26, 2018




         Before 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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 fight. (Id.).

         As a 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).


         The 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. Id.

         Default 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 Cir. 1996).

         In 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).


         A. Appropriateness of Default Judgment

         The 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 such.

         B. Viable Claim for Relief

         The 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 ...

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.