Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued BNB Wings N' Things LLC and its managing member, Bukhari Najeeullah Baaset. G&G alleged that they showed the April 22, 2023 Davis v. Garcia boxing program at a San Francisco establishment without buying a sublicense, although G&G held the exclusive commercial exhibition rights. It pleaded violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (satellite piracy) and § 553 (cable piracy), conversion, and California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Defaults were entered in 2024 and Baaset's was later set aside. Defense counsel eventually withdrew, BNB LLC never found replacement counsel, and Baaset proceeded pro se.
After Baaset missed an April 2026 status conference, the court suggested that G&G serve requests for admission rather than seek terminating sanctions. G&G served 101 requests in May 2026 with a warning that unanswered matters would be deemed admitted, and Baaset never responded. The deemed admissions covered his management role, his ability to supervise and financial interest in the establishment, his advertising of the program, non-payment of any license fee, and lack of authorization. G&G also offered an auditor's account of seeing part of the program on screens inside, and a rate card showing a $1,700 sublicense fee for a venue of this size. G&G moved for summary judgment against Baaset only, on the § 605 and conversion claims, and moved to dismiss BNB LLC without prejudice. Its earlier Rule 41(a)(1) notice had been withdrawn because BNB LLC had already answered.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment against Baaset on both claims. He conceded liability at the hearing and filed no opposition, and the court independently found no genuine dispute. His answer admitted advertising the program, supporting contributory liability, and the deemed admissions established his right and ability to supervise and his direct financial interest, supporting vicarious liability. Uncontradicted admissions that the signal came from diverted residential satellite service and a programmed access card led the court to treat the case as satellite piracy, making attorneys' fees mandatory under § 605. The court added that it would award fees in its discretion even if only cable piracy had been shown.
The parties waived a jury on the amount of damages. The court awarded $1,700 in statutory damages, equal to the sublicense fee, and rejected G&G's request for $5,000 because deterrence belongs in the enhancement rather than the base award. It found willfulness from the advertising but cut the requested $25,000 enhancement to $3,400, twice the base award. There was no evidence of repeat violations, a cover charge, or significant profit, the venue was a little over half full, and only one advertisement appeared. Total damages are $5,100. The court found conversion liability but declined to add the $1,700 licensing fee as duplicative of the statutory award.
The court granted voluntary dismissal of BNB LLC without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), finding no plain legal prejudice and no need for conditions given the inseparable conduct and Baaset's concession. It treated the unadjudicated § 553 and § 17200 claims as effectively resolved and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment. G&G's fee motion is due November 16, 2026, Baaset's response is due December 7, 2026, and the briefs are limited to 10 pages. The amount of fees remains undetermined.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se party's failure to answer properly warned requests for admission can establish liability facts, including interception, non-payment, and the supervisory and financial links needed for individual liability.
- Statutory damages under § 605 were set at the lost sublicense fee, while deterrence was handled through a modest two-times enhancement for a first-time, small-scale violation shown only by advertising.
- Proving satellite rather than cable interception matters because § 605 makes attorneys' fees mandatory, though this court said it would award fees either way.
- Conversion damages equal to the licensing fee were treated as duplicative of § 605 statutory damages, so they were not added on top.
- Voluntary dismissal of an unrepresented LLC without prejudice was allowed where the plaintiff obtained relief against the individual principal and the LLC showed no legal prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order and carries no precedential weight. It is useful mainly as an example of how one Northern District judge handled a common signal-piracy case: using requests for admission against a defendant who stopped participating, setting statutory damages at the license fee, and capping the enhancement at two times that amount.
The decision also shows the court weighing a split among district courts on whether conversion damages duplicate § 605 damages and siding with those that find them duplicative. Because the fee award is still to be determined, the final monetary outcome remains open.