G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Cofie

Background

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, described in the opinion as the exclusive rights holder of a pay-per-view boxing match, sued P. Cof LLC, identified as the owner and operator of Adinkra Bar & Restaurant, and Prince Cofie, identified as P. Cof LLC’s principal. The action was brought under Sections 553 and 605 of the Communications Act. G&G alleged that defendants displayed the match on two televisions at the Restaurant without obtaining the required commercial sublicense.

The court had previously granted G&G’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The opinion addressed only damages and attorneys’ fees. The opinion states that the Restaurant advertised the match on Facebook, that approximately 50 paying patrons watched it, and that Mr. Cofie ordered the match through his personal cable account rather than obtaining a commercial sublicense. The opinion contains an apparent date inconsistency: it describes the match as advertised on September 11, 2018, but says it was displayed on September 15, 2024, while also describing the litigation as involving a single event aired in 2018.

Statutory Damages

Section 605 permits statutory damages of $1,000 to $10,000 for each violation and allows additional damages for violations committed willfully for commercial advantage or private financial gain. The court considered the factors used in the Second Circuit’s Bryant approach, including the defendants’ state of mind, saved expenses, earned profits, the rights holder’s lost revenue, deterrence, cooperation in providing evidence, and the parties’ conduct.

G&G proposed two methods for calculating damages. One used the $2,800 commercial licensing fee and sought $5,600 in baseline damages plus $14,000 in enhanced damages. The other used a $100 charge for each of the approximately 50 patrons and sought $5,000 in baseline damages plus $12,500 in enhanced damages.

The court found that G&G had not sufficiently shown willfulness. It cited the lack of direct or circumstantial evidence that defendants knowingly or recklessly disregarded the licensing requirement, the absence of evidence of repeated violations, the small size and later closure of the business, and defendants’ participation in the litigation. Although defendants advertised the broadcast and charged a $20 admission fee, the court found those facts alone did not establish willfulness.

The court found that defendants avoided paying the $2,800 licensing fee. It also noted evidence that defendants collected at least $1,000 from the cover charges, while defendants asserted that they had no profits from the event. Because the business had closed and defendants had no plans to establish a similar business, the court found no need for specific deterrence, although it concluded that an award would still support general deterrence.

The court awarded $5,600 in statutory damages, equal to twice the licensing fee. It declined to award enhanced statutory damages because the evidence of willfulness was insufficient.

Attorneys’ Fees and Disposition

Section 605 requires an award of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to a prevailing aggrieved party. G&G requested $5,352.50, reflecting 13.85 hours of attorney work billed at $350 per hour and 5.05 hours of paralegal work. The court found the requested amount reasonable and awarded the full $5,352.50.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald awarded G&G total damages of $10,952.50: $5,600 in statutory damages and $5,352.50 in attorneys’ fees. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in G&G’s favor and close the case.