G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Baaset et al — Court Grants Summary Judgment on Signal Piracy Claims, Awards $5,100 in Damages

Background

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued BNB Wings N' Things LLC and its owner Bukhari Najeeullah Baaset for intercepting and broadcasting the Gervonta Davis v. Ryan Garcia boxing program without authorization. G&G held exclusive commercial exhibition licensing rights to the April 22, 2023 telecast. The complaint alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605), the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 553), conversion, and California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

The case had a protracted procedural history. After default was entered against both defendants in March 2024, Baaset's default was set aside but BNB LLC's was not. Defense counsel appeared in April 2025 but withdrew in October 2025. BNB LLC, unable to afford new counsel, remained unrepresented. At the court's suggestion, G&G served 101 requests for admission on Baaset in May 2026. Baaset, proceeding pro se, failed to respond, rendering the matters admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.

G&G moved for summary judgment against Baaset only on the § 605 and conversion claims, and separately moved for voluntary dismissal of BNB LLC without prejudice. The court heard oral argument on the summary judgment motion, at which Baaset conceded liability.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted summary judgment for G&G on the § 605 claim, finding no genuine dispute that Baaset intercepted and published the program without authorization. The deemed admissions established that Baaset owned and managed the establishment, had supervisory authority and financial interest in it, advertised the program, knew a licensing fee was required but did not pay it, and intercepted and broadcast the program. The court found both contributory infringement and vicarious liability under principles borrowed from copyright law.

On remedies, the court awarded $1,700 in statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i), reasoning that statutory damages should approximate actual damages, which equaled the licensing fee G&G would have charged. The court rejected G&G's request for a multiplier on statutory damages, holding that deterrence concerns belong to the enhanced damages analysis. The court awarded $3,400 in enhanced statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), finding willfulness established by the advertising but limiting the enhancement to two times statutory damages because Baaset was not a repeat offender, the violation was small in scale, and financial gain was limited.

The court also granted summary judgment on the conversion claim but awarded no additional damages, finding such damages duplicative of the § 605 statutory damages. The court granted G&G's motion for voluntary dismissal of BNB LLC without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), finding no legal prejudice to the LLC and no need for conditions. The court directed entry of final judgment and ordered G&G to file a motion for attorneys' fees, which are mandatory under § 605.

Key Takeaways

• Requests for admission served on a pro se defendant that go unanswered are deemed admitted under Rule 36 and can establish all elements of liability for signal piracy under § 605.
• Statutory damages under § 605 should approximate actual damages, typically the licensing fee, while deterrence is addressed through enhanced damages, which courts typically limit to two or three times statutory damages for non-repeat offenders.
• Attorneys' fees are mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs under § 605 but only discretionary under § 553, making the choice between satellite and cable signal claims strategically significant.
• Individual officers or owners of establishments can be held personally liable for signal piracy under contributory infringement and vicarious liability theories borrowed from copyright law.
• Damages for conversion based on the unpaid licensing fee are duplicative of statutory damages under § 605 and will not be awarded separately.

Why It Matters

This decision illustrates how courts in the Northern District of California calculate damages in signal piracy cases, separating compensatory statutory damages from deterrent enhanced damages and applying modest multipliers absent evidence of repeat violations or substantial profits. The ruling also demonstrates the procedural consequences when a pro se defendant fails to respond to requests for admission, which can effectively concede liability.

The court's analysis of the § 605/§ 553 distinction highlights the strategic importance of establishing whether an intercepted signal was satellite or cable, as that determination affects whether attorneys' fees are mandatory or discretionary. The decision also confirms that individual liability for corporate officers extends to signal piracy through secondary liability theories.