) This “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient to establish a prima facie case” against Quintana for contributory infringement. Gonzalez, 2019 WL 3716197, at *6 (holding that it would be “illogical for the Court to accept that merely because of [Defendant's] corporate officer status [he] acted to authorize alleged infringement of the Program”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Orellana, No. 18 CV 2052, 2019 WL 1177719, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (finding the individual defendant was not liable where the plaintiff only alleged liability based on the defendant being listed as the owner or principal on the establishment's liquor license). Therefore, I find that plaintiff has also not established contributory liability, and I respectfully recommend that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied as to Quintana.

Compl. ¶¶ 13-15. Such “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient to establish a prima facie case” against Joseph under the contributory infringement theory. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods. v. James, No. 17-CV-5359 (NGG) (ST), 2018 WL 3850731 at 5 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2018) (holding that the bare allegation in the complaint asserting that the individual defendant “directed or permitted” the unlawful broadcasting and the fact that the individual is the principal listed on the restaurant's liquor license would be insufficient to establish contributory liability against the individual defendant); J & J Sports Prods. v. Orellana, No. 18 CV 2052, 2019 WL 1177719 at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (declining to hold individual defendant liable where the plaintiff cited nothing more than defendant's “designation as the owner or principal of [establishment] on its New York State Liquor Authority-issued license”). Thus, this Court cannot conclude that contributory infringement applies to Joseph.

Plaintiff's argument is contrary to the weight of the case law in this District which pegs statutory damages to either the per person rate or flat-fee method. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Orellana, No. 18-CV-2052 (KAM) (VMS), 2019 WL 1177719, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019). Accordingly, I reject Plaintiff's reliance on those cases and respectfully recommend that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages of $2,000.

Such an award is consistent with the practice in this District. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Orellana, No. 18-CV-2052(KAM)(VMS), 2019 WL 1177719, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) ("[P]revious approaches by courts in the Second Circuit would award statutory damages equivalent to the sublicensing fee[.]")

For instance, this Court has identified two 2019 decisions authored by Judge Matsumoto in which she declined to award statutory damages in excess of the amount of the commercial fee. See, e.g., Gomez, 2019 WL 4744229, at *9-10 (Matsumoto, J.) (awarding $2,000 in statutory damages - the amount plaintiff would have received had defendant paid the sublicense fee and lawfully streamed the program); J & J v. Sports Prods., Inc v. Orellana, 18-CV-2052(KAM)(VMS), 2019 WL 1177719, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (Matsumoto, J.) (holding that an award of statutory damages equivalent to the sublicensing fee of $3,000 was consistent with Second Circuit case law). Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that the District Court impose, pursuant to its discretionary authority, statutory damages totaling $3,700.

Consistent with recent decisions in this Circuit, this Court declines J & J Sports' request to deviate from the well-established practice in this District. See J & J Sports Prods. v. Orellana, No. 18-CV-2052 (KAM) (VMS), 2019 WL 1177719, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (declining invitation to adopt McCausland and impose treble damages); see also J & J Sports Prods. v. Inga, No. 18-CV-2542 (PKC) (RLM), 2019 WL 1320278, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019) (same); J & J Sports Prods. v. Guncay, No. 18-CV-2097 (FB) (RML), 2018 WL 6313210, at *3 (Oct. 17, 2018) (same), adopted by, 2018 WL 6308773 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018). In keeping with those decisions, this Court declines the request for treble damages and instead recommends calculating damages using the statutory "flat fee" approach that is equal to the amount charged for the sublicense.

(Id. at 9.) However, the R&R found that Plaintiff's allegations constituted nothing more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," (id. at 10 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)), which courts in this District routinely find insufficient to establish individual liability (id. at 10-11 (citing J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Orellana, No. 18-CV-2052, 2019 WL 1177719, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. LX Food Grocery Inc., No. 15-CV-6505, 2016 WL 6905946 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2016); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Monte Limar Sports Bar Inc., No. 15-CV-3771, 2017 WL 933079, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Daley, No. 06-CV-238, 2007 WL 7135707 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2007))). It thus recommended that the Court not find the Individual Defendants liable for the conduct of Tony's Barbershop.

Given the evidence of willful conduct, the Court finds an enhanced damages award equal to the statutory damages appropriate and adequate under the circumstances, i.e., no evidence of repeated violations, advertising or cover charge, and only twenty-five patrons. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Orellana, No. 18-CV-2052, 2019 WL 1177719, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (awarding enhanced damages equal to statutory damages for willful violation). III.