J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Los Taquitos Bar & Grill LLC
| Decision Date | 18 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-cv-00160 |
| Parties | J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LOS TAQUITOS BAR AND GRILL LLC d/b/a Los Taquitos and d/b/a Los Taquitos Bar and Grill; MARIO GARZA, individually, and d/b/a Los Taquitos and d/b/a Los Taquitos Bar and Grill; and OLGA L. GARZA, individually, and d/b/a Los Taquitos and d/b/a Los Taquitos Bar and Grill, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
The Court now considers the cross-motions for summary judgment: "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support,"1 Defendants' response and motion to strike evidence,2 and Plaintiff's reply,3 and "Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,"4 and Plaintiff's response.5 The Court also considers "Defendants' Motion for Leave to Extend Deadline to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment"6 and Plaintiff's non-opposition.7 After considering the motions, record, and relevant authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for leave to file a late reply. The Court finds a genuine dispute of material fact and DENIES both motions for summary judgment.
This is an antipiracy case brought under the Federal Communications Act of 1934.8 Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. is a California broadcast corporation9 that alleges it had the exclusive right to sublicense a certain closed-circuit telecast, the "May 7, 2016 Saul Alvarez v. Amir Khan WBC World Middleweight Championship Fight Program, including all of the undercard or preliminary bouts (collectively the 'Event ')."10 Plaintiff alleges that, on May 7, 2016, "Defendants willfully intercepted or received the interstate communication of the Event" or alternatively assisted in receiving the communication.11 Plaintiff alleges that the communication or transmission of the Event "originated via satellite and was electronically coded or 'scrambled'" to prevent unauthorized viewing without proper electronic decoding equipment.12 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff's transmission and exhibited the Event without authorization on May 7, 2016, at their restaurant named "Los Taquitos and Los Taquitos Bar and Grill" in McAllen, Texas to Defendants' patrons, therby intending to "secure a commercial advantage and private financial gain."13 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated "47 U.S.C. Section 605, or Section 553."14
Plaintiff timely filed its original complaint on May 6, 2019.15 After numerous continuances to account for the difficulty of conducting discovery during the COVID-19 pandemic,16 discovery has closed and both parties believe they are entitled to summary judgmentand have timely filed motions.17 The Court first turns to Defendants' motion to file their reply brief one day late to ascertain the briefs being considered.
"Defendants seek leave to extend the deadline to file their reply brief in this cause by one day, from December 2, 2020 to December 3, 2020."18 Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on November 4, 2020.19 Plaintiff timely responded pursuant to Local Rule 7.4.A on November 25, 2020.20 Under Local Rule 7.4.E, Defendants' reply brief was due no later than December 2nd. Instead, on December 3rd, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking the Court's leave to file a late reply. Defendants' counsel explains in an affidavit that the power went out at his law office which caused counsel to lose work on the reply brief and have to restart the draft, which he was unable to complete before December 3rd.21 In an amended certificate of consultation filed on December 4th, Plaintiff indicated it is unopposed to Defendants' requested extension.22
The Court evaluates extensions requested after the expiration of the deadline for excusable neglect.23 "With regard to determining whether a party's neglect of a deadline is excusable, . . . the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission."24 Relevant factors include the danger of prejudice, "the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether themovant acted in good faith."25 However, "inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 'excusable' neglect."26
Courts around the country have recognized that power or internet outages are outside of counsels' control and generally warrant an extension of time27 and this Court agrees. Furthermore, Defendants' requested relief is unopposed, which the Court interprets as Plaintiff's non-opposition to Defendants' argument that their delay was justified, not prejudicial, and in good faith. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion for leave to extend the deadline.28 The Court will treat Defendants' attached "Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" and its exhibits as though they were timely filed.29
The Court now turns to the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court shall award summary judgment when there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."30 One principal purpose of summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses" and should be interpreted to accomplish this purpose.31
To earn summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate that there are no disputes over genuine and material facts and that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.32 "[I]f the movant bears the burden of proof on an issue, either because he is the plaintiff or as a defendant he is asserting an affirmative defense, he must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in his favor."33 The movant "bears the initial burden of . . . demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but is not required to negate elements of the nonmoving party's case."34 In other words, a movant may satisfy its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence to support the nonmovant's case if the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof with respect to that element at trial.35 To demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the movant must point to competent evidence in the record, such as documents, affidavits, and deposition testimony36 and must "articulate precisely how this evidence supports his claim,"37 to "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."38 If the movant fails to meet its initial burden, the motions for summary judgment "must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response."39 Accordingly,the Court may not enter summary judgment by default,40 but may accept a movant's facts as undisputed if they are unopposed.41
If the movant meets its initial burden, the nonmovant "may not rest upon mere allegations contained in the pleadings, but must set forth and support by summary judgment evidence specific facts" that demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial.42 The nonmovant's demonstration cannot consist solely of "[c]onclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation"43 and a "mere scintilla of evidence" also will not do.44 Even if the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of evidence in its favor, such evidence may be "so overwhelmed by contrary proof" that summary judgment is still proper in favor of the movant.45 The Court does not need to "credit evidence that is 'blatantly contradicted by the record,' especially by video or photographic evidence."46 "[T]he nonmoving party must adduce evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict."47 Neither self-serving allegations nor conclusory affidavits can defeat a motion for summary judgment supported by probative evidence.48 The Court will countenance only reasonable inferences in thenonmovant's favor and will not indulge "senseless" theories or leaps in logic.49 The nonmovant is "required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his or her claim."50 "A failure on the part of the nonmoving party to offer proof concerning an essential element of its case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial and mandates a finding that no genuine issue of fact exists."51 Courts "will not assume 'in the absence of any proof . . . that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts,' and will grant summary judgment 'in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant.'"52 The Court is under no duty to sift through the entire record in search of evidence to support the nonmovant's opposition to summary judgment.53
"A fact is 'material' if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action,"54 while a "genuine" dispute is present "only if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant."55 As a result, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."56 "Although this is an exacting standard, summary judgment is appropriate where the only issue before the court is apure question of law."57 The Court does not weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses and views all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,58 including "resolv[ing] factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only where there is an actual controversy, that is, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial