G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Cofie

Background

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC held the exclusive commercial licensing rights for a September 15, 2018, pay-per-view boxing match. Adinkra Bar & Restaurant showed the match to patrons. The restaurant’s Facebook page advertised the match, and an investigator stated that the restaurant charged a $20 cover charge, had approximately 50 people inside, served him a drink, and displayed the match on two televisions. Defendants did not buy a commercial sublicense from G&G, although Prince Cofie admitted that he ordered the match through his cable company.

G&G sued P. Cof LLC, identified as the owner and operator of the restaurant, and Prince Cofie, identified as P. Cof LLC’s principal. G&G alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, federal laws governing unauthorized interception or use of satellite and cable communications. G&G moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to decide liability without a trial while leaving damages for later.

Summary-Judgment Record

The court criticized defendants’ response to the required local statement of undisputed facts. Defendants generally said that facts were disputed or that they lacked enough information, but did not cite admissible evidence supporting those responses. The court treated unsupported responses as ineffective denials and declined to consider unsupported factual assertions. The court nevertheless recognized that G&G still had to show, through admissible evidence, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Liability of P. Cof LLC

The court held that G&G established a prima facie case against P. Cof LLC by showing that: (1) G&G had the exclusive right to license the match to commercial establishments; (2) the match originated through a satellite transmission and was retransmitted to cable and satellite systems; (3) the match was shown at the restaurant; and (4) defendants did not purchase a license from G&G.

Defendants argued that G&G had not sufficiently shown the source of the program and that they did not knowingly intercept the match, intend to infringe, or operate the restaurant on the night of the event because it had been provided to a friend for a birthday party. The court rejected these arguments. It found that G&G’s evidence addressed the program’s transmission source and explained that liability under § 605 is strict liability, meaning that a violation can result in liability regardless of the violator’s intent. The court also found that the birthday-party assertion was unsupported by admissible evidence.

The court noted that the same conduct can support liability under both § 605 and § 553 when programming is transmitted through both satellite and cable systems, but that courts award damages only under § 605 when a plaintiff seeks relief under both provisions.

Liability of Prince Cofie

The court explained that an individual may be liable for these violations if he authorized the violation or had the right and ability to supervise the unlawful activity while having a direct financial interest in it. G&G showed that Cofie was P. Cof LLC’s sole owner, officer, and principal; was listed as the principal on the restaurant’s liquor license; had a direct financial interest in the restaurant; and purchased the match through his residential account.

The court rejected defendants’ arguments that Cofie could not be liable because G&G had not shown that he was present or expressly authorized the violation, that ownership alone was insufficient, that too few patrons attended, or that Cofie received no benefit because the event was a friend’s birthday party. The court held that Cofie’s physical presence was not required for vicarious liability, and it found the evidence of the cover charge and attendance sufficient to show a financial interest. It therefore granted summary judgment on liability against Cofie as well.

Disposition

The court granted G&G’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It did not decide the amount of statutory damages or attorneys’ fees because G&G had not submitted support for those requests with its motion. G&G had stated that it sought $110,000 under § 605 and $60,000 under § 553, but the court left those issues unresolved. The court also noted that the restaurant was out of business and encouraged the parties to consider settlement.