G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Baaset

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 6, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00089
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-00089-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO STRIKE; AND SETTING ASIDE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT 10 BUKHARI NAJEEULLAH BAASET, et al., 11 Docket No. 16 Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G&G”) has filed suit against two Defendants: 15 (1) Bukhari Najeeullah Baaset, individually and doing business as BNB Wings N’ Things (“Mr. 16 Baaset”), and (2) BNB Wings N’ Things LLC (“BNB LLC”). Currently pending before the Court 17 is G&G’s motion to strike the answer filed by Mr. Baaset.1 The Court finds this matter suitable 18 for resolution without oral argument. The motion to strike is hereby DENIED. The default 19 entered against Mr. Baaset is also SET ASIDE. At this juncture, however, the default entered 20 against BNB LLC stands. 21 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 A. Complaint 23 In its complaint, G&G alleges as follows. G&G had the exclusive nationwide commercial 24 distribution (closed-circuit) rights to a certain boxing program telecast nationwide on April 22, 25 2023. See Compl. ¶ 18. G&G entered into sublicensing agreements with various entities, 26

27 1 No opposition was filed within the timeframe established by the Civil Local Rules. However, on 1 including entities within California, which allowed the entities the right to publicly exhibit the 2 boxing program at their commercial establishments. See Compl. ¶ 19. 3 BNB LLC owns a commercial establishment doing business as BNB Wings N’ Things, 4 located in San Francisco, California. See Compl. ¶ 7. BNB Wings N’ Things sells food and 5 alcoholic beverages to its customers. See Compl. ¶ 15. Mr. Baaset is the CEO and Managing 6 Member of BNB LLC, as reflected in filings made with the California Secretary of State. See 7 Compl. ¶ 9. Defendants did not have a sublicense to publicly exhibit the boxing program at BNB 8 Wings N’ Things. However, they advertised on social media posts that they would be showing the 9 boxing program at BNB Wings N’ Things, see Compl. ¶ 16, and on April 22, 2023, they 10 intercepted and publicly exhibited the program at the commercial establishment. See Compl. ¶ 23. 11 Based on, inter alia, the above allegations, G&G has asserted the following causes of 12 action: (1) violation of the federal Communications Act of 1934, see 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq.; (2) 13 violation of the Cable & Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992, see 47 14 U.S.C. § 553; (3) conversion; and (4) violation of California Business & Professions Code § 15 17200. G&G seeks among other things, statutory damages in the amount of $170,000, 16 compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. 17 B. Service of Complaint 18 G&G served its complaint on Defendants by personal delivery on January 31, 2024. See 19 Docket Nos. 11-12 (proof of service). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a), Defendants 20 were required to serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the complaint. See Fed. 21 R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 22 Because Defendants did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 23 the above timeframe, G&G moved for entry of default on March 14, 2024. See Docket No. 13 24 (motion). A copy of the motion was served on Defendants by mail. See Docket No. 13 (proof of 25 service). Several days later, on March 18, 2024, the Clerk entered a default as to both Defendants, 26 i.e., Mr. Baaset and BNB LLC. See Docket No. 14 (notice). 27 Only three days later, on March 22, 2024, Mr. Baaset filed an answer to G&G’s complaint. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 G&G moves to strike Mr. Baaset’s answer on the ground that a default has already been 3 entered against him. In light of Mr. Baaset’s pro se status, however, the Court liberally construes 4 his filing of an answer as a motion to set aside the entry of default as well. Mr. Baaset’s 5 opposition to the motion to strike – though untimely filed – also warrants this approach. 6 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court has discretion to set aside an entry of 7 default for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).

8 To determine "good cause", a court must "consider[ ] three factors: (1) whether [the party seeking to set aside the default] engaged in 9 culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether [it] had [no] meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default . . . would 10 prejudice" the other party. This standard . . . is disjunctive, such that a finding that any one of these factors is true is sufficient reason for 11 the district court to refuse to set aside the default. 12 United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). “At the same time, courts are 13 directed to be ‘solicitous towards movants,’ particularly pro se litigants, and to deny a motion to 14 set aside default only where ‘extreme circumstances’ exist.” J & J Sports Prods. v. Castro, No. 15 11-CV-05468-RMW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133400, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012); see also 16 Mesle, 615 F.3d at 1089 (stating that “[o]ur rules for determining when a default should be set 17 aside are solicitous towards movants, especially those whose actions leading to the default were 18 taken without the benefit of legal representation”). 19 The Court concludes that there is good cause to set aside Mr. Baaset’s default. There is no 20 indication that he engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default, especially when he is a pro 21 se litigant and his answer was only about a month late. See TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 22 244 F.3d 691, 698 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have typically held that a defendant's conduct was 23 culpable . . . where there is no explanation of the default inconsistent with a devious, deliberate, 24 willful, or bad faith failure to respond.”). Also, Mr. Baaset may well have a meritorious defendant 25 as he has largely denied the allegations made in the complaint, and there is no unfair prejudice to 26 G&G given that it only initiated this case at the beginning of the year. Finally, there are no 27 extreme circumstances suggesting that denial of the motion to set aside would be warranted. 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court SETS ASIDE Mr. Baaset’s default and DENIES G&G’s motion 3 || to strike his answer. The Court notes that only Mr. Baaset’s default is set aside. At this juncture, 4 || the default entered against BNB LLC stands. The Court also notes for Mr. Baaset’s benefit that he 5 || is entitled to represent himself in this lawsuit, but he cannot represent BNB LLC. BNB LLC may 6 appear only through counsel See Civ. L.R. 3-9(a)-(b). 7 Because the case against Mr. Baaset shall proceed, the Court directs him to several 8 || resources that may be helpful to him as a pro se litigant: (1) the Court’s Pro Se Handbook which is 9 available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/ and (2) the Legal Help Center, a 10 service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco. More 11 information about the Legal Help Center is available at 12 || □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 5 13 Finally, given the nature of the case, the Court sua sponte refers the case to a settlement 14 || conference before a magistrate judge. A settlement conference shall be held within one hundred 3 15 twenty (120) days. The Court temporarily STAYS proceedings until the settlement conference is 16 || completed. Within one week after the settlement conference, the parties shall file a joint status 3 17 report, indicating whether the case settled and proposed next steps. 18 This order disposes of Docket No. 16. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: May 6, 2024 23 24 EDWA . CHEN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28