Opinion
01 Civ. 9777 (JES) (AJP)
May 15, 2002
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In response to plaintiff King Vision's motion for a default judgment, Judge Sprizzo referred the matter to me for a Report Recommendation with respect to the appropriate amounts of statutory damages. The complaint in this case seeks damages against defendants under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 553 and § 605. (Dkt. No. 1: Compl.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends an award of $20,000 in statutory damages, costs of $390, but no attorneys' fees.
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, D.J. Peck, M.J.) (quoting 1OA C. Wright, A. Miller M. Kane, Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 2d § 2688 at 58-59 (3d ed. 1998)). The Complaint
Accord, e.g., 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 Pay-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 WL 949665 at 1 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2000) (Peck, M.J.); King Vision Pay-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.).
King Vision entered into a closed-circuit television license agreement to exhibit the closed-circuit telecast of the March 13, 1999 championship boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis (the "Event"), at closed-circuit locations such as theaters, arenas, bars, clubs, lounges and restaurants throughout New York. (Dkt. No. 1: Compl. ¶ 7.) The scrambled closed-circuit broadcast of the Event could only be exhibited in a commercial establishment that obtained a license from King Vision. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11.) Defendant Drencia Restaurant Corp. ("Drencia") and its owner defendant Jahe DeDushi (Compl. ¶ 6) could have licensed the Event from plaintiff King Vision, but did not do so. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Nevertheless, on March 13, 1999, defendants willfully intercepted and received the Event and transmitted it to the Drencia's customers. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-18.)
The complaint asserts causes of action for violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Compl. ¶¶ 20-26) and 47 U.S.C. § 553 (Compl. ¶¶ 27-35).
King Vision's Investigator's Report
King Vision's investigator found 10 people watching the Event at Drencia. (King Vision Br. Ex. B: Investigator Report Aff) King Vision states that based on these figures, it would have charged Drencia a license fee of $2,500 for the event. (King Vision Br. at 10.)
ANALYSIS
The 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) (quoting Fustok v. Conti Commodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)).
Accord, e.g., 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 Pay-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 Pictures 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 WL 949665 at 2 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2000) (Peck, M.J.);King Vision Pay-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.); Chen v. Jenna Lane, Inc., 30 F. Supp.2d 622, 624 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Carter, D.J. Peck, M.J.); see also, e.g., 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., King Vision Pay-Per-View Corp. v. Papacito Lidia Luncheonette, Inc., 2001 WL 1558269 at 2; King Vision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. New Paradise Rest., 2000 WL 378053 at 2.
Plaintiff King Vision seeks to cumulate all of these damages for a total of $170,000 in statutory damages. (See, e.g., Compl. Wherefore ¶¶ B-F; King Vision "Statement of Damages.") However, this Court, in two prior cases involving King Vision, made clear that a plaintiff cannot recover under both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and § 553. King Vision v. Papacito Lidia, 2001 WL 1558269 at 2; King Vision v. New Paradise, 2000 WL 378053 at 2; 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 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 Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Jasper Grocery, 152 F. Supp.2d 438, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Cablevision Sys. 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 Elec. 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.
In King Vision v. New Paradise, this Court awarded King Vision $20,000 in statutory damages in a similar case. 2000 WL 378053 at 2 (citingCablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Faschitti, 94 Civ. 6830, 1996 WL 48689 at 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1996)). In King Vision v. Papacito Lidia, this Court again awarded King Vision $20,000 in statutory damages. 2001 WL 1558269 at 2. The Court believes that is an appropriate measure of statutory damages in this case as well.
Other cases involving King Vision have resulted in similar awards.See, e.g., King Vision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Jasper Grocery, 152 F. Supp. 2d at 441-43 ($15,000); King Vision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Scott E's Pub, Inc., 146 F. Supp.2d 955, 961 (E.D. Wis. 2001) ($18,375); King Vision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Las Cazuelas Mexican Rest., 99 Civ. 10041, 2000 WL 264004 at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2000) ($12,500).
Some decisions, instead of a flat amount, have awarded a per customer based damages award of $50 to $300 per patron. See e.g., New Contenders, Inc. v. Diaz Seafood Corp., 1997 WL 538827 at 2 ($300 per customer);Cablevision v. Faschitti, 1996 WL 48689 at 2 (citing cases with awards of $50 and $250 per customer). Since King Vision's investigator reported only 10 patrons during the Event (see page 3 above), King Vision would get even less under this method.
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
King Vision also seeks costs of $1,051 and attorney fees of $2,340. (See Iannacone 5/2/02 Aff. ¶¶ 3-4 Ex. A.)The Court declines to award attorney fees, for several reasons. First, the complaint and brief are identical (except for the identity of the defendants) to the complaint and brief filed by King Vision in the King Vision v. Papacito Lidia action. The Court awarded attorney fees to King Vision in that case. King Vision should not be reimbursed twice for the same work. Indeed, the $2,340 in legal fees requested here is exactly the same amount requested and awarded in King Vision v. Papacito Lidia — which raises some concerns about the legitimacy of King Vision's counsel's computerized time entries (or is an amazing coincidence). Finally, King Vision's brief continues to seek double recovery under 47 U.S.C. § 553 and § 605, without recognizing my decisions and the decisions of other Judges within the District that hold that such a double recovery is not permitted. King Vision should not be awarded fees for a brief that does not adequately and accurately inform the Court of prevailing law (especially where King Vision knows that its brief is submitted in connection with a default and thus unopposed).
As to costs, King Vision does not justify its request for parking, postage and Federal Express, copies and telephone costs, and those costs are disallowed. King Vision should be awarded $390 in costs (for the $150 filing fee and $240 in process server fees).
This Report and Recommendation should serve as a wake-up call to King Vision and its counsel. The Court (at least, this Judge) will not award King Vision attorney fees unless the issues raised in this Report and Recommendation are addressed and remedied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court should award King Vision statutory damages of $20,000 plus $390 in costs, but no attorney fees.
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 John E. Sprizzo, 40 Centre Street, Room 2201, and to my chambers, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1370. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Sprizzo. 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, 9F.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).