G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Perez

Background

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC distributes sports and entertainment programming to commercial establishments. It entered into a 2019 agreement with DAZN giving G & G exclusive commercial distribution rights for certain events, including the November 2, 2019 boxing fight between Saul “Canelo” Álvarez and Sergey Kovalev. The agreement also gave G & G authority to sue over unauthorized broadcasts, but provided that G & G’s rights would return to DAZN when the agreement expired or ended.

The fight was shown to more than 200 patrons at the 40/40 Club. The club was owned and operated by Twenty Ones Incorporated. Krystian Santini and Juan Perez were listed as principals on Twenty Ones’s liquor license. G & G alleged that the defendants showed the fight without obtaining a license from G & G or paying the $2,800 commercial sublicense fee. The defendants maintained that they ordered the fight through a G & G sales representative, purchased a DAZN subscription, and streamed the fight through DAZN’s internet application.

G & G sued under Sections 553 and 605, which generally prohibit unauthorized interception or receipt of cable, wire, or radio communications and provide a cause of action for an injured rights holder. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Standing analysis

The court first considered whether G & G was legally entitled to bring the claims. Under Sections 553 and 605, a person bringing the action must be an “aggrieved person,” including a person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication. The statutes do not themselves create those proprietary rights; the rights may come from a contract.

The parties agreed that the 2019 agreement initially gave G & G proprietary rights in the fight. The agreement’s stated term ran from May 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, unless extended in writing by mutual agreement. A later statement of work covered the November 2 fight. The court concluded that the 2020 agreement between G & G and DAZN superseded the earlier agreement, and that the 2019 agreement could not have continued G & G’s rights through the July 2021 filing of this action. Even under G & G’s alternative interpretation, the court found that the statement of work extended the rights only until January 16 or January 30, 2020, at the latest.

The court rejected G & G’s argument that the defendants could not interpret the agreements because they were not third-party beneficiaries. The defendants were not trying to enforce the agreements; they were arguing that G & G lacked the proprietary rights required to sue under federal law. The court also rejected G & G’s assertion that the parties’ course of conduct extended the agreement, finding that G & G offered no specific evidence of conduct showing such an extension.

Ruling

The court held that G & G’s rights in the fight had reverted to DAZN by the time G & G filed suit in July 2021. G & G therefore was not an “aggrieved person” under Sections 553 and 605 and lacked statutory standing to prosecute the claims.

The court expressly did not decide whether the defendants violated either anti-piracy statute. It noted that factual disputes—including whether G & G authorized the defendants to stream the fight—would likely have prevented summary judgment on the merits if a proper plaintiff had brought the claims.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied G & G’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, and close the case.