Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. held the exclusive commercial-distribution rights to UFC 284: Islam Makhachev vs. Alexander Volkanovski. Rocky’s Live Bar & Restaurant displayed the event on at least six televisions on February 11–12, 2023, using a manager’s personal noncommercial streaming account rather than purchasing the required $866 commercial sublicense. The bar advertised the event and food and drink specials on social media, charged no cover, and had at least 15 patrons present.
Joe Hand sued Rocky’s Live Incorporated and owners Roque Baires and Jocelyn Fuentes under the Federal Communications Act. After the defendants failed to answer by their April 2026 deadlines, the clerk entered default. Baires and Fuentes later moved to set aside their defaults, while Rocky’s Live Incorporated never appeared. Joe Hand sought a default judgment against the corporation.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted in part Joe Hand’s motion for default judgment against Rocky’s Live Incorporated. It concluded that the pleadings and supporting evidence established the elements of an unauthorized broadcast under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and that default judgment was procedurally warranted. The court awarded $2,598 in statutory damages—three times the sublicense fee—and $10,392 in enhanced damages—four times the statutory award—because the bar advertised the event, displayed it on multiple screens, and had previously promoted other Joe Hand-licensed fights without buying sublicenses.
The resulting damages award was $12,990, plus post-judgment interest at 4.02%. The court also held that Joe Hand was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to be established by a later filing. It denied Baires’s and Fuentes’s motions to set aside default because they failed to present a meritorious defense to the strict-liability claim or to vicarious liability based on their supervisory authority and financial interests in the bar. The court directed Joe Hand to seek default judgment against the remaining defendants within seven days.
Key Takeaways
- An establishment violates the Federal Communications Act when it commercially displays an exclusively licensed program without authorization, even if the broadcast comes through a personal streaming account.
- The court calculated statutory damages at three times the $866 license fee and enhanced damages at four times that statutory award, for a total of $12,990.
- The owners could not set aside their defaults without presenting a potentially meritorious defense to the strict-liability and vicarious-liability theories.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts may use multiples of the commercial license fee to calculate damages in broadcast-piracy cases, with advertising, multiple screens, and repeated unauthorized events supporting a substantial enhancement even when attendance is modest and no cover is charged.
It also underscores that business owners seeking relief from an entry of default must do more than dispute personal knowledge or intent. Where the underlying statute imposes strict liability, an owner’s supervisory authority and direct financial interest may support individual vicarious liability.