Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Ruiz

Background

Innovative Sports Management, Inc. alleged that it owned exclusive commercial exhibition rights for certain soccer matches, including an October 17, 2023 match between Ecuador and Colombia. It alleged that the match was displayed for patrons at Lo Que Pueda Rodizio or Pub Colombian Cuisine, a restaurant in Campbell, California, without a license. Innovative sued Benjamin Jean Ruiz for damages under 47 U.S.C. § 553 or § 605, conversion under California law, and restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The motion for default judgment sought damages only on the § 553 and conversion claims.

Ruiz did not respond to the complaint or appear in the case. The clerk entered default on April 11, 2025. Innovative did not try to serve Ruiz at the Winchester Boulevard address for Lo Que Pueda listed on the summons. Instead, it made four attempts to serve him at Mimosas Café on Pearl Avenue in San José. Process was left with an unnamed waitress described as apparently in charge, and a copy was mailed to Ruiz at that address.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It also stated that it had personal jurisdiction over Ruiz to the extent he was the primary owner and operator of Lo Que Pueda. But the court found that Innovative had not established proper service of process.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), service may follow the law of the state where the federal court sits. California permits substitute service after reasonable diligence in attempting personal service, but the person receiving the documents must have a relationship with the defendant making it more likely than not that the documents will reach the defendant. The court found that Innovative had not shown that the waitress at Mimosas Café met that requirement.

The court identified two main problems. First, the evidence did not establish that a person named Benjamin Jean Ruiz owned or worked at Mimosas Café when service was attempted. Although the café’s liquor license listed that name, other evidence indicated that the person listed on the license had no ownership interest as of September 2023. Statements by employees that “Benjamin” or “Ben” was unavailable did not show that they meant the defendant’s full name or that he visited the café often enough for it to be a proper location for substitute service.

Second, even assuming that a person named Benjamin Jean Ruiz was associated with Mimosas Café, Innovative did not provide enough evidence that this person was the same Benjamin Jean Ruiz connected to Lo Que Pueda. A public-records report listed two people with that name who shared a birth date and some contact information but had different Social Security numbers, differing addresses and phone numbers, and no overlap in listed relatives. The report also warned that its information could contain errors and should be independently verified. The court found that Innovative had not independently verified the report. The investigator’s report likewise did not connect the two establishments and raised doubt about whether any Benjamin Jean Ruiz was involved in the alleged display at Lo Que Pueda.

Disposition

The court concluded that Innovative had not shown that the waitress was more likely than not to deliver the documents to the defendant named in the case. Because service was inadequate, the court did not consider the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment. The court added that, even if it had considered those factors, it would have denied the motion because the inadequate service created a significant risk that Ruiz’s failure to respond resulted from excusable neglect.

The court DENIED Innovative’s motion for default judgment.