G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Baaset

Background

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued Bukhari Najeeullah Baaset, individually and doing business as BNB Wings N’ Things, and BNB Wings N’ Things LLC. G&G alleged that the defendants operated a commercial establishment and unlawfully intercepted and broadcast a program on April 22, 2023, even though G&G had exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights.

The court considered G&G’s motion to strike two affirmative defenses in the defendants’ second amended answer: failure to mitigate damages and unclean hands. An affirmative defense is a legal reason a defendant argues should limit or defeat the plaintiff’s claim even if the complaint’s allegations are assumed to be true for purposes of the defense.

Court’s Analysis

The court struck the unclean-hands defense. The defendants alleged that they bought the right to show the program through a Showtime application, that G&G allowed the broadcast to occur to create unnecessary litigation, and that G&G had filed more than 350 nationwide cases. The court held that these allegations did not show the kind of inequitable or especially serious conduct that would bar G&G from asserting its claims. The court said the allegations did not involve conduct similar to inducing the defendants to broadcast the program illegally, entrapment, or comparable misconduct.

The court struck the failure-to-mitigate defense in part. It held that the defense could not be based on G&G’s alleged ability to prevent the injury before the broadcast occurred. The duty to mitigate damages arises after an injury, and concerns losses that could reasonably have been avoided after the harm occurred.

The court did not strike the failure-to-mitigate defense in its entirety. It was unclear whether G&G could have reduced its losses after the defendants began showing the program but before the broadcast ended. For example, stopping the broadcast might have reduced losses tied to a commercial license fee or profits from food and drink if some patrons then left and watched the program privately. The court also noted that factual issues could later show that intervention was impractical or unreasonable, including difficulty verifying whether a license had been purchased at the last minute or the risk of confrontation with patrons.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part G&G’s motion to strike. It struck the unclean-hands affirmative defense and struck the failure-to-mitigate defense to the extent it relied on preventing the injury before it occurred. It did not strike the failure-to-mitigate defense in its entirety. The order disposed of Docket No. 73.