1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 INNOVATIVE SPORTS CV 20-02655 TJH (PLAx) MANAGEMENT INC., d.b.a. 13 INTEGRATED SPORTS MEDIA,

14 Plaintiff, Order 15 v. and 16 EDWIN URIEL ALVARADO, d.b.a. COPAN SULA RESTAURANT, et al., Judgment 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 The Court has considered Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d.b.a. 21 Integrated Sports Media’s [“Innovative”], renewed motion for default judgment and 22 motion to dismiss its remaining claims, together with the moving papers. 23 Innovative holds the exclusive United States commercial distribution rights to the 24 Honduras v. Ecuador International Soccer Match ["the Soccer Game"], which was 25 broadcasted nationwide on March 26, 2019. 26 On March 20, 2020, Innovative filed this action, alleging that Defendants Edwin 27 Uriel Alvarado, d.b.a. Copan Sula Restaurant [“E. Alvarado”], Hector Leonel 28 Alvarado, d.b.a. Copan Sula Restaurant [“H. Alvarado”], and Honduran Enterprises, 1 Inc.. d.b.a. Copan Sula Restaurant [“Honduran”] displayed, without a license, the 2 Soccer Game at Copan Sula Restaurant [“Copan Sula”], the restaurant owned by 3 Honduran, of which E. Alvarado and H. Alvarado are directors and shareholders. The 4 complaint alleged four claims: (1) Unauthorized interception of satellite 5 communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; (2) Unauthorized reception of cable 6 communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; (3) Conversion; and 4) Violation of 7 California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 8 E. Alvarado, H. Alvarado, and Honduran have never appeared in this action. 9 On May 6, 2020, the Clerk of Court entered their defaults. 10 On June 19, 2020, Innovative, unsuccessfully, moved for default judgment. 11 Innovative provided evidence that E. Alvarado and H. Alvarado were officers and 12 stockholders of Honduran and that Honduran owned Copan Sula. However, Innovative 13 failed to establish liability as to any claim other than its conversion claim. 14 Consequently, the Court denied Innovative's motion as to all claims because if the 15 Court had granted the motion Innovative would not have been able to renew it motion 16 as to its § 605 claim because of the ban against double recovery. 17 Innovative, now, moves for default judgment with respect to its conversion claim 18 and, also, moves to dismiss its remaining claims. 19 Default Judgment 20 When reviewing this motion for default judgment, the Court must consider the 21 following factors: (1) The possibility of prejudice to Innovative; (2) The merits of 22 Innovative's substantive claim; (3) The sufficiency of the complaint; (4) The sum of 23 money at stake; (5) The possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) Whether 24 the Defendants’ defaults were due to excusable neglect; and (7) Federal policy favoring 25 decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 Regarding the first factor, the possibility of prejudice to Innovative is high 27 because if this motion is denied Innovative will have no alternative recourse for its 28 claims. See Elektra Entm't Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 1 2005) (citing Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72). 2 Regarding the second and third factors, the Court must accept the factual 3 allegations in the complaint regarding liability as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 4 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). To prevail on a conversion claim, Innovative must 5 allege: (1) That Innovative owned or had the right to possess the property at issue; (2) 6 Wrongful disposition of the property right by the Defendants; and (3) Damages. See 7 Tyrone Pac. Intern. Inc. v. MV Eurychilli, 658 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1981). The 8 Court previously held that Innovative sufficiently alleged liability against the 9 Defendants as to its conversion claim. Thus, Innovative has established liability for its 10 conversion claim, here. 11 Regarding the fourth factor, Innovative requested $1,250.00 in damages for its 12 conversion claim. Innovative provided evidence that the Defendants would have had 13 to pay a licensing fee of $1,250.00 to lawfully display the Soccer Game, which is the 14 proper measure of damages for a conversion claim, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3336. 15 Regarding the fifth factor, there is little possibility of a dispute concerning the 16 material facts of this case. The Court must accept the factual allegations in the 17 complaint regarding liability as true, and the Defendants failed to oppose this motion. 18 See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 19 Regarding the sixth factor, it is unlikely that the Defendants’ inaction was due 20 to excusable neglect. They have never participated in this action. 21 Regarding the seventh factor, although federal policy favors decisions on the 22 merits, all other Eitel factors weigh in favor of the Court granting default judgment 23 against the Defendants. 24 Damages 25 Innovative sought $1,250.00 in conversion damages. Generally, upon default, 26 the facts alleged in the complaint, except those facts relating to the amount of damages, 27 are taken as true. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3336, 28 damages for conversion are based on the property's value at the time of the conversion. 1 Innovative provided an affidavit from investigator Brahman Turner, which stated that 2 Turner observed the Soccer Game being displayed at Copan Sula on multiple screens. 3 Turner estimated that the maximum capacity of the restaurant was 150 people. 4 Innovative, also, submitted an affidavit from its president, Doug Jacobs, which set forth 5 the licensing fee schedule for the Soccer Game. For a venue with a capacity of 150 6 people, the licensing fee was $1,250.00. Consequently, Innovative has established its 7 conversion damages. 8 Costs 9 Innovative requested 14 days, post-judgment, to submit its requests for costs. 10 Costs should be awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 11 Dismissal of Remaining Claims 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is the appropriate vehicle to withdraw an 13 individual claim. See, e.g., Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 14 403 F.3d 683, 697-88 (9th Cir. 2005). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Innovative 15 may amend its complaint with the opposing party's consent or leave of Court. Here, 16 Innovated moved to dismiss its three remaining claims. There is no reason for the 17 Court to deny leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 18 19 Accordingly, 20 21 It is Ordered that the motion for default judgment be, and hereby is, Granted 22 only as to the conversion claim. 23 24 It is further Ordered that all other claims be, and hereby are, Dismissed. 25 26 It is further Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that judgment be, and hereby 27 is, Entered in favor of Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d.b.a. Integrated 28 Sports Media, and against Defendants Edwin Uriel Alvarado, d.b.a. Copan Sula 1 || Restaurant, Hector Leonel Alvarado, d.b.a. Copan Sula Restaurant, and Honduran 2 || Enterprises, Inc., d.b.a. Copan Sula Restaurant, jointly and severally, in the amount 3 || of $1,250.00. 4 5 Ii is Curther Ordsered that Innovative may submit a Bill of Costs to the Clerk 6 || of Court within 14 days of this Order and Judgment. 7 8 || Date: August 27, 2021

10 Ae. ty J. Hatter,Ar. Senior United States District JudIge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order and Judgment Page 5 of 5