National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc.

253 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P had obtained the exclusive right to broadcast a fight to commercial establishments in Ohio. Time (D) had obtained the exclusive right to broadcast the event on a pay-per-view basis to its Ohio residential customers. The Melody Lane Lounge, erroneously listed as a residential customer of Time (D), ordered the event through Time’s (D) service. Time's (D) account records show that Melody Lane Lounge had ordered one earlier program at the commercial rate. But Melody Lane Lounge ordered the event in question from Time (D) at the residential rate of $ 39.95. Melody Lane Lounge should have paid P for the right to show the event, which would have cost it $987.50. Only 23 patrons were in the bar at the time the event was broadcast. P brought suit against Eliadis (D), the corporate owner of the bar. The suit named Time (D) as a defendant. P alleged a violation of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-613 (Communications Act), which, among other things, prohibits the unauthorized divulgence of wire or radio communications. Eliadis (D) reached a settlement with P. P and Time (D) then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of P, finding that Time (D) had violated § 605. The district court determined that Time (D) was liable for $4,500 in statutory damages. P was awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), totaling $ 26,389.65. Time (D) appealed. Time (D) contends that the district court erred by failing to give preclusive effect to a separate district court judgment rendered in July of 1998 that arose from a substantially identical claim by P against Time (D). In that prior case, the district granted Time's (D) motion for summary judgment on the basis that P 'failed to state a claim pursuant to the terms of the contracts [for distribution] at issue in this case as well as 47 U.S.C. § 605.' P did not appeal. Time (D) argues that the prior decision precludes P from raising the identical § 605 claim in the present case.