Gand Gclosed Circuit Events, LLC v. JESUS SEGURA, DBA La Selva Taqueria, individually

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
G AND G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS,
LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JESUS SEGURA, DBA La Selva
Taqueria, individually,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16381
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07576-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS,*** District
Judge.
FILED
MAY 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

G & G Closed Circuit Events (G & G) seeks review of the district court’s
default judgment against Jesus Segura, which awarded G & G $1,400 in statutory
damages and $2,800 in enhanced damages under 47 U.S.C. § 553. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,400 in statutory
damages under § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii), which permits a court to award statutory
damages between $250 and $10,000 “as the court considers just.” See Kingvision
Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).1 We
reject G & G’s argument that the district court erred by conflating an award of
actual damages under § 553(c)(3)(A)(i) with an award of statutory damages under
§ 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). It is not error for a district court to consider estimated actual
damages as a factor in determining the amount of statutory damages, so long as the
damages award falls within the statutorily authorized range. See Lake Alice Bar,
168 F.3d at 350; 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii). G & G’s argument that the district
court failed to explain its rationale for its damages award is belied by the record.
1 Any error in holding that Segura was liable under 47 U.S.C. § 553 instead
of 47 U.S.C. § 605, was harmless because the district court’s $1,400 statutory
damages award falls within the damages range authorized by both statutes. See
§ 553(c)(3)(A)(ii) (providing for a statutory damages range between $250 and
$10,000) and § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) (providing for a statutory damages range
between $1,000 and $10,000).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,800 in
enhanced damages under § 553(c)(3)(B), which provides that a court may increase
its statutory damages award “in its discretion” by up to $50,000 if it finds that the
defendant’s conduct was “committed willfully and for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B). Because the court
found that Segura’s conduct was willful and for commercial advantage or financial
gain, its award was constrained only by the $50,000 statutory maximum. Id. G &
G’s argument that Segura’s actions necessitate a higher statutory and enhanced
damages award is not supported by the statute or precedent. See id.; Lake Alice
Bar, 168 F.3d at 350.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --