Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Ace Shisha Lounge LLP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:24-cv-01685-MTS
)
ACE SHISHA LOUNGE LLP, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. moved for Summary Judgment in this matter
against Defendants Ace Shisha Lounge LLP, Anel Ramic, and Denis Omerovic. 	Doc. [19];
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 	Defendants’ time to respond to the Motion came and went,
and they filed nothing. 	See E.D Mo. L.R. 4.01(F). 	It is unusual for a party represented by
counsel to altogether fail to respond to a motion for summary judgment. For this reason, the
Court entered an Order providing Defendants an opportunity to (1) demonstrate excusable
neglect for their failure to respond to the Motion, and (2) respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment no later than January 16, 2026. 	Doc. [23]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1).
Puzzlingly, Defendants again filed nothing. Thus, now before the Court is Plaintiff’s wholly
unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment.
*
“A court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the moving party shows that
there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” 	Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
“Even if a motion for summary judgment on a particular claim stands unopposed, the district
Case: 4:24-cv-01685-MTS Doc. #: 24 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
court must still determine that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
that claim.” 	Giles v. Saint Luke’s Northland-Smithville, 908 F.3d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 2018)
(per curiam) (quoting Interstate Power Co. v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 992 F.2d 804,
807 (8th Cir. 1993)). When the nonmoving party fails to address another party’s assertion of
fact, the court may “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—
including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it.” 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(e)(3).
Summary 	judgment 	in 	this 	anti-piracy 	matter 	is 	now 	straightforward 	because
Defendants have admitted the simple elements for violation of the Federal Communications
Act of 1934. 	See 47 U.S.C. § 605. 	Plaintiff possessed the proprietary rights to exhibit and
sublicense the right for commercial establishments to exhibit the pay-per-view boxing
broadcasts of Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley 2, telecast on December 18, 2021, and Canelo
Alvarez vs. Jaime Munguia, telecast on May 4, 2024. 	Doc. [21] ¶ 2. 	Defendants, without
authorization, intercepted and received or assisted in the interception and receipt of the
transmission of Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley 2, and broadcast or assisted in the broadcast of
Jake Paul vs. Tyron Woodley 2 to the patrons of Defendants’ Establishment. 	Id. ¶ 12. 	On
May 4, 2024, without authorization, Defendants intercepted and received or assisted in the
interception and receipt of the transmission of Canelo Alvarez vs. Jaime Munguia, and
broadcast or assisted in the broadcast of Canelo Alvarez vs. Jaime Munguia to the patrons of
the Defendants’ Establishment. Id. ¶ 13. Defendants Anel Ramic and Denis Omerovic were
principals of Defendant Ace Shisha Lounge LLP on the dates of the Events, and they were
present during the broadcasts. Id. ¶¶ 19–20.
Case: 4:24-cv-01685-MTS Doc. #: 24 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
These undisputed facts constitute a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and demonstrate that
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 	See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.
Warehouse W. Restarant & Lounge LLC, 4:23-cv-1545-MTS, 2024 WL 1619202, at *1
(E.D. Mo. Apr. 15, 2024); E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E) (“All matters set forth in the moving
party’s Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts shall be deemed admitted for purposes of
summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.”). 	For the
violation, the Court will award Plaintiff statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) in the
amount of ten thousand dollars. The Court will award an additional forty thousand dollars in
damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) given that the undisputed facts show that Defendants
committed the act willfully and for commercial advantage and private financial gain.
Finally, the Court will award costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees under
§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s unopposed
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. [19], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a fee affidavit no later than
Friday, February 06, 2026. Defendants will have ten (10) days to file any opposition to the
amount. Afterwards, the Court will enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 27th day of January 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-01685-MTS Doc. #: 24 Filed: 01/27/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>