Courts in this circuit have also endorsed “the alternative theories of vicarious liability and contributory liability, each drawn from the copyright context, that allow for individual corporate officers to be held liable for their companies' FCA violations.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 658 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). “Contributory liability applies where the officer himself ‘authorized the infringing use.'” Id. (quoting Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc'ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 971 (2d Cir. 1997)).
47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). “A presumption of willfulness arises when a program is broadcast without authorization.” Skaf, 2020 WL 3035351, at *8 (citing J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Morocho, No. 18-CV-2303 (AMD)(RLM), 2019 WL 1339198, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019), adopted by 2019 WL 1333245 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019)); see also J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachanan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 660 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (defining willfulness as disregard to and indifference for governing statute's requirements).
“A default judgment is ordinarily justified where a defendant fails to respond to the complaint.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 662 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting SEC v. Anticevic, No. 05-CV-6991 (KMW), 2009 WL 4250508, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2009)); see also Bricklayers Ins. & Welfare Fund v. David & Allen Contracting, Inc., No. 05 CV 4778 (SJ) (VVP), 2007 WL 3046359, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2007) (citing Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1984))
“A default judgment is ordinarily justified where a defendant fails to respond to the complaint.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 662 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting SEC v. Anticevic, No. 05-CV-6991 (KMW), 2009 WL 4250508, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2009).
When determining vicarious liability, courts consider an individual's: (1) “right and ability” to supervise the infringing activity and (2) “obvious and direct financial interest” in displaying the exclusively licensed materials. J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., No. 17-CV-01184 (LDH) (PK), 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 659 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (adopting R. & R.). Courts in this District are split on what allegations sufficiently support vicarious liability.
Indeed, courts in this Circuit have found indirect evidence of financial gain where there were far fewer than 50 patrons in the establishment. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 659 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (20 to 25 patrons);
“A default judgment is ordinarily justified where a defendant fails to respond to the complaint.” J & J Sports Prod., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 662 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing SEC v. Anticevic, 05 Civ. 6991 (KMW), 2009 WL 4250508, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2009)).
As the plaintiff points out, “there is no requirement that a corporate officer have authorized the infringement to be vicariously liable for it.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 659 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).
See, e.g., Vergara, 2020 WL 1034393, at *9-11; J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 663 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. 4326 Kurz, Ltd., No. 07 Civ. 3850 (WHY), 2009 WL 1886124, at *10-12 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2009).
“A default judgment is ordinarily justified where a defendant fails to respond to the complaint.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ahuachapan Corp., 422 F.Supp.3d 652, 662 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting SEC v. Anticevic, No. 05-CV-6991 (KMW), 2009 WL 4250508, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2009)).