Case Brief-Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. V. Dominguez

Topics: Oscar De La Hoya, Closed-circuit television, Satellite television Pages: 2 (409 words) Published: July 23, 2012
Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Dominguez

1. Citation: 2006 U.S. Dist.

2. Facts: Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. based in San Jose, California, owned the exclusive right to broadcast several prizefights via closed-circuit television, including the match between Oscar De La Hoya and Fernando Vargas on September 14, 2002. Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. sold the right to receive the broadcasts to bars and other commercial venues. The fee was $20 multiplied by an establishment’s maximum fire code occupancy. Antenas Enterprises in Chicago, Illinois, sells and installs satellite television systems under a contract with DISH Network. After installing a system, Antenas sends the buyer’s address and other identifying information to DISH. In January 2002, Luis Garcia, an Antenas employee, identified a new customer as Jose Melendez at 220 Hawthorn Commons in Vernon Hills. The address was a restaurant Mundelien Burrito and coded the business address as residential. Mundelien’s customers watched the De La Hoya-Vargas match, as well as three other fights on other dates, for which the restaurant paid only the residential rate to DISH and nothing to Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. Garden City Boxing Club, Inc filed a suit in a federal district court against Luis Dominguez, the sole proprietor of antennas, to collect the fee.

3. Issue: Is Luis Dominguez liable for paying the fee for closed circuit broadcast rights to a prizefight when the end-user is misidentified, causing revenue reduction? If so, is he liable for paying the aggrieved party?

4. Decision: Yes, Luis Dominquez is liable for paying Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. because he is the sole proprietor and is personally responsible for actions committed by his employees within the scope of their employment. Dominquez is personally liable for the damages caused by the violation of [Section] 605, since Luis Dominquez, coded Mundelein’s address incorrectly Antenas Enterprises allowed the...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Case Brief: Caperton v. Massey Research Paper
  • BLADE INC. CASE Essay
  • Case Brief of Terry v Essay
  • Case Briefs Essay
  • Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief Essay
  • Case Brief
  • R. V Burns Case Brief Essay
  • Ring V. Arizona Case Brief Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free