Articles Posted in Conversion

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports Productions, Inc. of Campbell, California has sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Wesley Yeakle individually and d/b/a Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill; and Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc. d/b/a Yeakles Sports Bar and Grill, both of Marion, Indiana, illegally intercepted and televised Manny Pacquiao v. Timothy Bradley WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program (the “Program”), which was telecast nationwide on Saturday, June 9, 2012.

J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Program. It has sued Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., as well as Wesley Yeakle as an individual, under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program without a commercial license on the day of its broadcast. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.

A count of conversion is also included in the complaint. It asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports” and that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss.”

In addition to naming the separate legal entity, Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., which apparently owns the restaurant, Plaintiff has also sued Yeakle alleging that he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of the establishment. J & J Sports asserts that the activities that he supervised included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s program. J & J Sports contends that Yeakle specifically directed the employees of Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s program at Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill or, if he did not, that the actions of the employees of Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill are directly imputable to Yeakle by virtue of his purported responsibility for the activities of the restaurant.

Yeakle has also been named individually as a result of J & J Sports’ contention that he is a managing member of Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc. J & J Sports further asserts that Yeakle, as an individual specifically identified on the liquor license for Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill.

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages for each violation in an amount to $10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii); (b) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B); (c) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C); and (d) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C).
• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to J & J Sports.

Practice Tip #1: A recent complaint filed by a different intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports deviated from the standard format of J & J Sports’ complaints. The standard format, as is demonstrated in this complaint, includes a count of conversion. It also asserts Counts I and II as additive. However, the other complaint omitted the count of conversion and listed Counts I and II in the alternative. It will be interesting to see whether the differences between these pleadings results in different rulings by the Northern District of Indiana.

Practice Tip #2: J & J Sports has sued two entities: a legal entity which appears to be incorporated and an individual who is apparently an owner of that company. While corporations are intended to limit the liability of the principals, they are not always successful in doing so. Where a principal is personally involved in certain types of illegal activity, legal mechanisms (such as a corporation or a limited liability company) that are designed to shield that individual from liability may fail to do so.

Practice Tip #3:  J & J Sports is a frequent litigant.  While the fight programs at issue in its intellectual property lawsuits vary, with few exceptions, the complaints are otherwise almost identical.  As is sometimes also the case with others utilizing this template approach to drafting multiple similar complaints, this standardized method of litigation resulted in several errors in this complaint drafted for J & J Sports.  For example, the date of the program over which this federal lawsuit was initiated is listed incorrectly at least four times (listed variously as “Saturday [sic], June 6, 2012,” “June 6, 2012″ and May 7, 2011.”)

Continue reading

Hammond, Indiana – A copyright attorney for J & J Sports Productions, Inc., of Campbell, California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Melissa Estrella a/k/a Melissa Barnett, a/k/a Melissa White of Calumet City, Illinois individually and d/b/a Estrellas Sports Bar, located in Hammond, Indiana, unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the “Ruiz/Hamer” broadcast.

J & J Sports states that it is licensed as a distributor of the “Ruiz/Hamer” broadcast. It has sued Melissa Estrella individually and doing business as Estrellas Sports Bar (“Estrellas”) under the Federal Communications Act and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act.

Specifically, Ms. Estrella has been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the “Ruiz/Hamer” broadcast on November 23, 2013 without a commercial license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 553, the complaint alleges that with “with full knowledge that the Broadcast was not to be received and exhibited by entities unauthorized to do so, Defendant … did exhibit the Broadcast … willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.”

As the establishment is apparently not a separate legal entity, the only Defendant is Ms. Estrella. The allegations against her include that she had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Estrellas Sports Bar. J & J Sports asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of its program.

J & J Sports also contends that Ms. Estrella specifically directed the employees of the establishment to unlawfully intercept and broadcast J & J Sports’ program at Estrellas or, if she did not, that the actions of the employees of Estrellas are directly imputable to Ms. Estrella by virtue of her purported ownership of and responsibility for the activities of Estrellas.

J & J Sports also asserts that Ms. Estrella advertised the exhibition of J & J Sports’ program and collected a cover charge of $5 per person on the night of the alleged illegal acts. This accusation, in conjunction with her purported ownership of the establishment, prompted J & J Sports to assert that Ms. Estrella had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of Estrellas and received a benefit from the operations of Estrellas on November 23, 2013.

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for J & J Sports asks for injunctive relief. The following counts and requests for redress are also listed:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory penalties for each willful violation in an amount up to $110,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(a), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), or, in the alternative,
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages for each violation in an amount to $60,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553; (b) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C).

Practice Tip #1: Among its assertions of wrongdoing, J & J Sports has alleged interception of the Program under 47 U.S.C. § 605, which is a different cause of action from copyright infringement.

Practice Tip #2: When Congress passed the Cable Communication Act, a statute of limitations was not included. Some federal courts have determined that a two-year statute of limitation is appropriate while other federal courts have used a three-year statute of limitations. Unlike some plaintiffs in similar lawsuits, who have filed late enough to risk running afoul of the statute of limitations, J & J Sports filed in a relatively short period of time following the alleged wrongdoing.

Practice Tip #3: Previous similar complaints filed by J & J Sports have also included a count of conversion. That count typically asserted that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports” and that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports had suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss,” an expansive proposition that we have in the past posited might be difficult to prove. Perhaps those difficulties explain the absence of this count in the current complaint. Counts I and II have also been modified. Previous complaints had asserted these counts as additive, while this complaint lists them in the alternative.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses accused of infringing satellite signals.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Jeffrey M. Abbott individually and d/b/a Awesome Place Bar & Grill and Awesome Place Bar and Grill, LLC d/b/a Awesome Place Bar & Grill, all of Mishawaka, Indiana illegally intercepted and televised Ultimate Fighting Championship 145: Jon Jones v. Rashad Evans (“the Program”).

Joe Hand Promotions, a commercial distributor of sporting events, states that it was granted exclusive rights to distribute via closed-circuit telecast the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) fight between Jon Jones and Rashad Evans, which Joe Hand Promotions asserts was broadcast nationwide on April 21, 2012.

In the complaint against Abbott and Awesome Place Bar and Grill, LLC, Joe Hand Promotions has alleged such wrongful acts as interception, reception, publication, divulgence, display, exhibition, and “tortuously” [sic] converting the Program.

In addition to naming the restaurant, Joe Hand Promotions has also sued both Awesome Place Bar and Grill, LLC and Abbott as an individual, claiming that Abbot had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Awesome Place Bar & Grill. Joe Hand Promotions asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of its UFC Program.

Abbott, Awesome Place Bar and Grill, LLC, both allegedly doing business as Awesome Place Bar & Grill, have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. The complaint, filed by a Kentucky intellectual property attorney, also lists a count of conversion. Joe Hand Promotions seeks statutory damages of $110,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; $60,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; compensatory and punitive damages on the claim of conversion; costs, including costs incurred for the service of process and the investigation of potential wrongdoing; and attorney’s fees.

Practice Tip #1: When Congress passed the Cable Communication Act, a statute of limitations was not included. Some federal courts have determined that a two-year statute of limitation is appropriate while other federal courts have used a three-year statute of limitations. As is typical with lawsuits initiated by Joe Hand Promotions, the complaint was filed almost exactly two years after April 21, 2012, the date of the alleged wrongdoing.

Practice Tip #2: Joe Hand Promotions is a frequent litigant and has brought many cases in Indiana in recent years against defendants alleged to have illegally intercepted and/or broadcast UFC fights. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News has previously blogged on the cases below:

Joe Hand Promotions Sues for Unlawful Interception of Championship Fight

Joe Hand Promotions Again in Court Asserting Unlawful Interception

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Fishbowl Pub and its Owners for Unlawful Interception and Broadcast of UFC Fight

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Ho Bo Jungle Bar Over Unauthorized Interception of the Ultimate Fighting Championship Broadcast

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Lawrenceburg, Indiana Bar for Showing UFC Fight Without Authorization

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Beerbelly’s over Interception of Broadcast Signal

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Longwell and Pitt Stop Pub & Grill for Intercepting UFC Broadcast

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania, via a Kentucky intellectual property lawyer, has sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Lee H. Holmes, individually and d/b/a Homer’s Restaurant, both of Peru, Indiana, unlawfully intercepted and televised the Ultimate Fighting Championship 141:Brock Lesnar v. Alistar Overeem (“the Program”).

Joe Hand Promotions, a commercial distributor of sporting events, states that it was granted exclusive rights to distribute via closed-circuit telecast the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) fight between Brock Lesnar and Alistar Overeem, which Joe Hand Promotions asserts was broadcast nationwide on December 30, 2011.

In the complaint against Holmes and Homer’s Restaurant, Joe Hand Promotions has alleged such wrongful acts as interception, reception, publication, divulgence, display, exhibition, and “tortuously” [sic] converting the Program.

In addition to naming the restaurant, which was not listed as a separate legal entity, Joe Hand Promotions has also sued Holmes as an individual, claiming that he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Homer’s Restaurant. Joe Hand Promotions asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of its UFC Program.

Holmes and Homer’s Restaurant have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. The complaint, filed by a Kentucky intellectual property attorney, also lists a count of conversion. Joe Hand Promotions seeks statutory damages of $110,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; $60,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; compensatory and punitive damages on the claim of conversion; costs, including costs incurred for the service of process and the investigation of potential wrongdoing; and attorney’s fees.

Practice Tip #1: While on the surface this appears to be a copyright case, an allegation of interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605 is a different cause of action from copyright infringement. However, a suit alleging interception does not preclude an additional lawsuit asserting different causes of action. For example, the copyright holder can also sue for copyright infringement, which could increase damages by as much as $150,000.

Practice Tip #2: Most satellite signal providers employ encryption to limit receiption to certain groups, such as paying subscribers.  However, not all licenses grant equal rights.  for example, if an individual as a “residential” agreement with a satellite provider, that agreement does not also give that individual the right to display the performance in a public setting like a bar or restaurant..

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – J & J Sports Productions, Inc. of Campbell, California (“J & J Sports”), via a complaint filed by its intellectual property lawyer, has sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Christine Kotsopoulos, purportedly a managing member of Geo-Joe, LLP, which owns and operates Cancun Mexican Grill, all of Fort Wayne, Indiana, unlawfully intercepted and broadcast “Good v. Evil”: Miguel Angel Cotto v. Antonio Margaritio, WBA Super World Light Middleweight Championship Fight Program (the “Program”) telecast on December 3, 2011.

J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Program. It has sued Geo-Joe, as well as Christine Kotsopoulos as an individual, under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the program on December 3, 2011 without a commercial license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.

A count of conversion is also included. It asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports” and that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss.”

In addition to naming the separate legal entity, Geo-Joe, which apparently owns the restaurant, Plaintiff has also sued Kotsopoulos alleging that she had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Cancun Mexican Restaurant. J & J Sports asserts that the activities that she supervised included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s program. J & J Sports contends that Kotsopoulos specifically directed the employees of Cancun Mexican Restaurant to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s program at Cancun Mexican Restaurant or, if she did not, that the actions of the employees of Cancun Mexican Restaurant are directly imputable to Kotsopoulos by virtue of her purported responsibility for the activities of the restaurant.

Kotsopoulos has also been named individually as a result of J & J Sports’ contention that she is a managing member of Geo-Joe. J & J Sports further asserts that Kotsopoulos, as an individual specifically identified on the liquor license for Cancun Mexican Restaurant, had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of Cancun Mexican Restaurant.

In the complaint, the intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress:

•Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

•Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages for each violation in an amount to $10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii); (b) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B); (c) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C); and (d) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C).

•Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to J & J Sports.

Practice Tip #1: The interception claim has a two-year statute of limitations, which explains why this complaint was filed on December 2, 2013 almost exactly two years after the broadcast of the Program. J & J Sports initiated 708 lawsuits in 2011 alone. It appears that many of them were also filed near the eve of the two-year anniversary of the broadcast of the program at issue in each individual lawsuit.

Practice Tip #2: J & J Sports has sued two entities: a limited liability company and an individual who is apparently a principal in that company. While limited liability companies are intended, as the name suggests, to limit the liability of the principals, they are not always successful in doing so. Where a principal is personally involved in certain types of illegal activity, legal mechanisms (such as a limited liability company) that are designed to shield the principal from liability may fail to do so.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses accused of infringing satellite signals.

Continue reading

Hammond, Indiana – Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Miguel Serrato and Miguel Mexican Fusion Grill, LLC, both d/b/a Miguel’s Mexican Fusion Grill, all of Schererville, Indiana unlawfully intercepted and televised the Ultimate Fighting Championship 139: Mauricio “Shogun” Rua v. Dan Henderson, Championship Fight Program.

Joe Hand Promotions, a commercial distributor of sporting events, was granted exclusive rights to distribute via closed-circuit television the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) Mauricio “Shogun” Rua v. Dan Henderson fight (the “Program”), which Joe Hand Promotions asserts was telecast nationwide on November 19, 2101 [sic].

In the complaint against Serrato and Miguel’s Mexican Fusion Grill, an intellectual property lawyer for Joe Hand Promotions has alleged such wrongful acts as interception, reception, publication, divulgence, display, exhibition, and “tortuous” [sic] conversion of the Program.

In addition to naming the separate legal entity which apparently owns Miguel’s Mexican Fusion Grill, Joe Hand Promotions has also sued Serrato as an individual, claiming that he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Miguel’s Mexican Fusion Grill. Joe Hand Promotions asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of its UFC Program.

Serrato and Miguel Mexican Fusion Grill, LLC have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. The complaint also lists a count of conversion. Joe Hand Promotions seeks statutory damages of $100,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; $50,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; compensatory and punitive damages on the claim of conversion; costs, including costs incurred for the service of process and the investigation of potential wrongdoing; and attorney’s fees. These claims have been made both against Miguel Mexican Fusion Grill, LLC and as personal liability claims against Serrato.

Practice Tip #1: Joe Hand Promotions has sued two entities: a limited liability company and an individual who is apparently a principal in that company. While limited liability companies are intended, as the name suggests, to limit the liability of the principals, they are not always successful in doing so. Where a principal is personally involved in certain types of illegal activity, legal mechanisms (such as a limited liability company) that are designed to shield the principal from liability may fail to do so.

Practice Tip #2: While on the surface this appears to be a copyright case, an allegation of interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605 is a different cause of action from copyright infringement. However, a suit alleging interception does not preclude an additional lawsuit alleging different causes of action. For example, the copyright holder can also sue for copyright infringement, which could increase damages by as much as $150,000.

Practice Tip #3: In addition to misspelled words, incorrectly numbered paragraphs and an assertion that every page is numbered “Page PAGE 7” [sic], this complaint asserts wrongdoing which occurred on “November 19, 2101.” It is then dated as having been signed on “November 8, 20134.” Such inexactitude is perhaps due in part to Joe Hand Promotions having filed hundreds upon hundreds of similar lawsuits. Nonetheless, at least in this case, such flaws in pleading might present a creative attorney with the opportunity to make at least one novel argument: given that, in this filing it is admitted that more than 18,000 years have passed between the date of the alleged illegal act and the time when the lawsuit was/will be initiated (although all 18,000+ years have yet to occur), the statute of limitations surely has, or will have, run at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – J & J Sports Productions, Inc. of Campbell, California (“J & J Sports”) has sued Joseph M. Hubbard and Alison Kay, LLC, both of Indianapolis, Indiana and d/b/a Wing’N It in the Southern District of Indiana alleging the unlawful interception and broadcast of the Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez, WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program.

J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez, WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program (the “program”). It has sued Alison Kay, which is listed on the complaint as the name of a limited liability company, as well as Joseph M. Hubbard as an individual, under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the program on November 12, 2011 without a commercial license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.

A count of conversion is also included which asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports” and that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss.”

In addition to naming the separate legal entity, Alison Kay, LLC, which apparently owns the restaurant, Plaintiff has also sued Hubbard alleging that he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Wing’N It. J & J Sports asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s program.

J & J Sports also contends that Hubbard specifically directed the employees of Wing’N It to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s program at Wing’N It or, if he did not, that the actions of the employees of Wing’N It are directly imputable to Hubbard by virtue of his purported responsibility for the activities of Wing’N It. Hubbard has also been named individually as a result of J & J Sports’ contention that he is a managing member of Alison Kay, LLC. J & J further asserts that Hubbard, as an individual specifically identified on the liquor license for Wing’N It, had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of Wing’N It.

In the complaint, the intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress:

•Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

•Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages for each violation in an amount to $10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii); (b) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B); (c) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C); and (d) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C).

•Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to the Plaintiff.

Practice Tip #1: While on the surface this appears to be a copyright case, an allegation of interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605 is a different cause of action from copyright infringement. However, a suit alleging interception does not preclude an additional lawsuit alleging different causes of action. For example, the copyright holder can also sue for copyright infringement, which could increase damages by as much as $150,000.

Practice Tip #2: As part of its complaint, J & J Sports claims that the Defendants’ actions have subjected it to “severe economic distress and great financial loss.” It will be interesting to see what evidence it offers as proof that, as a result of allegedly not receiving its full commercial fee for the programming purportedly displayed by the Defendants – a circumstance presumably known to few other than the Defendants themselves – it has suffered severe economic distress and great financial loss.

Continue reading