United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff J&J Sports
Productions, Inc.'s [ECF No. 13] motion for summary
judgment against Defendant La'Tanya T. Epps filed on
August 31, 2017.
filed a complaint against Defendants, Ultimate Jet-A-Way
Sportsbar & Lounge, Inc. and La'Tanya T. Epps, on
April 21, 2017, seeking an award of statutory damages,
enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages based on the unlicensed
broadcast of the "Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Marcos Rene
Maidana WBC Welterweight Championship Fight Program."
[ECF No. 1].
April 25, 2017, Plaintiff's private process server served
La'Tanya T. Epps individually and as Registered Agent of
Ultimate Jet-A-Way Sportsbar & Lounge [ECF No. 5-1].
Defendant Ultimate Jet-A-Way Sportsbar & Lounge failed to
answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Accordingly, on
November 3, 2017, the Court entered a default judgment in
favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Ultimate Jet-A-Way
Sportsbar & Lounge, Inc. in the amount of $5, 910.75,
which consisted of $4, 070.00 in statutory and enhanced
damages plus $1, 840.75 in attorney's fees and costs.
[ECF No. 15].
La'Tanya T. Epps filed an answer on May 8, 2017. [ECF No.
6]. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against
Defendant Epps on August 31, 2017. [ECF No. 13]. To date,
Defendant Epps has failed to file a response in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (2010). “A party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in
the record . . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do
not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute,
or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment
is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d
1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts and inferences to be
drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id. However,
"the mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of
material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
the moving party has met [its] burden, the nonmoving party
must come forward with some evidence beyond the mere
allegations contained in the pleadings to show that there is
a genuine issue for trial." Baber v. Hospital Corp.
of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992). The
nonmoving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture,
unsupported speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat
a motion for summary judgment. See Baber, 977 F.2d
at 875. Rather, the nonmoving party is required to
submit evidence of specific facts by way of affidavits,
depositions, interrogatories, or admissions to demonstrate
the existence of a genuine and material factual issue for
trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
Liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605
seeks summary judgment on the basis of Defendant Epps'
failure to respond to Plaintiff's requests for admission.
Plaintiff argues that by virtue of the Defendant's
failure to respond to Plaintiff's Request for Admission,
the following matters of material fact were admitted pursuant
to Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
a. The Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Marcos Rene Maidana WBC
Welterweight Championship Fight Program (the
"Event") was shown in the Establishment on May 3,
b. Defendant intercepted the broadcast of the Event in the
c. Neither Defendant nor anyone else (to Defendant's
knowledge) paid a licensing fee for the Event for the
Establishment to Plaintiff or to any person authorized by
d. Defendant was aware that a licensing fee was required to
be paid to Plaintiff in order to lawfully telecast the Event
in the Establishment.
e. In advance of the Event, Defendant advertised that the
Event would be telecast within the Establishment.
f. On May 3, 2014, the Establishment required its patrons or
clientele of the Establishment to pay a cover charge or other
fee to enter the Establishment.
g. The Event was received in the Establishment because
Defendant used a satellite access card programmed to enable
it to receive satellite television service ...