G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Perez

Background

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued Juan Perez, Krystian Santini, and Twenty Ones Incorporated, alleging that the 40/40 Club broadcast the November 2, 2019 boxing match between Saul “Canelo” Álvarez and Sergey Kovalev without paying G & G a $2,800 sublicensing fee. G & G’s agreements with non-party DAZN gave G & G exclusive authority to sublicense the match’s broadcasting rights in the United States.

The 2019 master services agreement gave G & G authority to prosecute piracy for a specified period and said that, when the agreement expired, all rights transferred to G & G would cease and return to DAZN. Statement of Work 4 potentially extended the agreement’s terms, but it referred to additional boxing events scheduled before January 30, 2020. A later 2020 agreement superseded and terminated earlier agreements concerning the same subject matter.

On January 31, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied G & G’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court determined that G & G lacked statutory standing—the legal right under the federal broadcast-piracy laws to bring the claim—because its proprietary rights had returned to DAZN before G & G filed this lawsuit in July 2021. Final judgment was entered for the defendants.

Motion for Reconsideration

G & G moved to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and sought reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues or present new theories.

G & G argued that the court had overlooked an Arizona district court’s decision that denied summary judgment on a similar standing issue. G & G also argued that the court had not properly considered contractual language incorporating the 2019 agreement into Statement of Work 4 and contractual language allowing G & G to identify and prosecute piracy. G & G contended that its rights should have lasted through the applicable limitations period or, at minimum, that the expiration date presented a factual issue for trial.

Court’s Analysis

The court was not persuaded by the Arizona decision. It explained that its original ruling had already accepted that Statement of Work 4 might extend the 2019 agreement beyond December 31, 2019. But the latest date mentioned in Statement of Work 4 was January 30, 2020. The Arizona decision did not explain how rights preserved only through that date could give G & G standing to sue in October 2020 or July 2021.

The court also rejected G & G’s interpretation of the agreements. Section 8(d) of the 2019 agreement stated that “all” rights transferred to G & G, including anti-piracy enforcement rights, would cease and revert to DAZN upon expiration or termination. The court declined to rewrite that provision to exclude enforcement rights or to extend them through the limitations period.

The court read the provision allowing G & G to “identify and thereafter prosecute” piracy consistently with the reversion provision. In its view, that language allowed enforcement after a covered event but only for the duration of the 2019 agreement. When the agreement expired, DAZN became the sole rights holder for the covered events.

The court further held that Statement of Work 4 did not modify the reversion provision. Although it extended the agreement’s terms for certain fights and allowed G & G to request rights for additional events before January 30, 2020, it did not mention a longer period for anti-piracy enforcement, the limitations period, or a contractual relationship after January 30, 2020.

Finally, the court rejected G & G’s argument that DAZN’s silence could establish a factual dispute about the agreement’s duration. A party opposing summary judgment must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; a counterfactual argument about what a DAZN representative might have said was not enough.

Disposition

The court found no reason to reconsider its summary judgment decision and denied G & G’s motion. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.