Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Hot Shot Enterprises, LLC , 462 F. App'x 305 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1613
    SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; SOUND CHOICE STUDIOS,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    HOT SHOT ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a Hot Shot Mobile DJ,
    Defendant – Appellee,
    and
    ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, a Virginia general partnership
    composed of Glenn Lorenz, James Brandon, and John Doe No. 1
    (identity unknown); GLENN LORENZ; JAMES BRANDON; JOHN DOE
    #1, (identity unknown); HORIZON MUSICFEST, LLC; KIRK RUBLEY,
    d/b/a Kirkabee Deejays; DAVID SNEDDON, d/b/a Super Dave’s
    Karaoke; ELWOOD JUNKINS, d/b/a Starlight Entertainment;
    NELSON COFFMAN, d/b/a Nelson’s Karaoke; METRO ENTERTAINMENT,
    LLC; RON WATKIN, d/b/a Karaoke Express; TERRY LEE RYAN;
    JASON B. INGRAM, d/b/a Mobile Disc Jockeys; NICK PARAVATI,
    d/b/a Nick’s Karaoke; SJ’S LAKESIDE TAVERN; NICHOLAS FISHER,
    d/b/a Karaoke One; L&W ENTERTAINMENT, a Virginia general
    partnership composed of Linda Lackey and Walter Lackey;
    LINDA LACKEY; WALTER LACKEY; BLUE NOTE ENTERTAINMENT &
    PRODUCTIONS, LLC; EPIPHANY ENTERTAINMENT, a Virginia general
    partnership composed of Thomas J. Grosvenor and Sarah B.
    Grosvenor; THOMAS J. GROSVENOR; SARAH B. GROSVENOR; SHANER
    SOUND SERVICES, a Virginia general partnership composed of
    Ken Shaner, Drew Shaner and Neal Shaner; KEN SHANER; DREW
    SHANER; NEAL SHANER; JASON E. CALL, d/b/a KJ Productions;
    TWO GUYS PRODUCTIONS, a Virginia general partnership
    composed of Clint Novak and Bob Kidd; CLINT NOVAK; BOB KIDD;
    NIGEL BANDERAS, d/b/a Virginia Idol Entertainment; NARD’S
    PROFESSIONAL DJ SERVICE; JIMMY O’NEAL, d/b/a Good Tymes
    Karaoke & DJ Services; RICHARD NUNNALLY, d/b/a King Richard
    Karaoke; GARY BRIGGS, SR., d/b/a Gary’s Karaoke & DJ
    Service; GARY BRIGGS, JR., d/b/a Gary’s Karaoke & DJ
    Service; JANET LEIMBERGER, d/b/a Gowitit Karaoke/DJ; PARKER
    MEADOWS, d/b/a Camelot Entertainment; JEFFREY SMITH, d/b/a
    Smitty’s Karaoke; TONY KOHLHEPP, d/b/a Symphonic Karaoke &
    DJ   Service;   FAGAN’S   RESTORATIONS,  INCORPORATED,   d/b/a
    Irelands Four Courts; RB PUB, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Finnegan’s
    Bar and Grill; MOE’S PEYTON PLACE; TEIXEIRA, INCORPORATED,
    d/b/a The Clubhouse Restaurant and Sports Bar; THE ASHBURN
    PUB; K2 RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, a/k/a Kilroys II; 1319 KING
    STREET,    INCORPORATED,    d/b/a   Rock  It   Grill;    SNSA,
    INCORPORATED, d/b/a Fast Eddie’s Sports and Billards;
    PARADISO, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Paradiso Ristorante Italiano;
    CHAD    PAINTER,    d/b/a    Wonderland;   REJ    ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED, d/b/a Murphy’s Law Billiards & Sports Pub;
    BUBBA’S RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED; THE WRANGLER SPORTS BAR &
    GRILL, LLC; ANDRADE’S INTERNATIONAL RESTAURANT, LLC; OSB &
    G, LLC, d/b/a Overtime Sports Bar & Grill; NANKING CHINESE
    RESTAURANT; NACHO MAMA’S, INCORPORATED; FRENCH BISTRO 104,
    LLC, d/b/a Bistro 104; CFC OF CHARLESTON, INCORPORATED,
    d/b/a Sine Irish Pub & Restaurant; KING PIN LANES,
    INCORPORATED; HOOAH’S SPORTS GRILL; PATRICK’S RESTAURANT;
    BETLIN RESTAURANTS, LLC, d/b/a The Stratford Grill; MARS
    BAR; STEEL HORSE BAR & GRILLE; J & D’S CAFE; HOSPITALITY OF
    RICHMOND, LLC, d/b/a Cha Cha’s Cantina; ANDREW BLANTON,
    d/b/a Bethany Entertainment; MICHAEL COWLES, d/b/a Capitol
    Party Authority; DAVID TAYLOR,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:09-cv-01390-CMH-JFA)
    Submitted:   December 29, 2011         Decided:     January 23, 2012
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    2
    James M. Harrington, HARRINGTON     LAW,   P.C.,   Concord,   North
    Carolina, for Appellants.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    3
    PER CURIAM:
    The     Appellants        appeal      the    district     court’s       order
    adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
    entering      an    order   of    default      judgment      in    their    favor.      The
    Appellants claim that the damage award is too small and the
    injunction and destruction orders are too vague.                             Because the
    district      court    applied      an    incorrect        standard    of     review,   we
    vacate and remand for further proceedings.
    Because the magistrate judge was operating without the
    parties’ consent on the resolution of a dispositive matter, the
    district court was bound to make a de novo determination of
    those portions of the report to which objection was made.                                
    28 U.S.C.A. § 636
    (b)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    72(b)(3).       Here, the Appellants filed specific objections to the
    magistrate judge’s report and sought a hearing to submit further
    evidence in support of a higher damage award.                               The district
    court    overruled      the      objections        and    denied   a   hearing    without
    explanation, stating that “[b]ased on a de novo review of the
    evidence in this case and consideration of the objections filed,
    the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of
    Fact    and     Recommendations          are   neither       clearly       erroneous    nor
    contrary to law.”           Taking the district court’s statement at face
    value,     it       reviewed      the     magistrate         judge’s       findings     and
    4
    recommendations        for    clear   error—not     under       the    appropriate       de
    novo standard.         We are further concerned by the district court’s
    conclusory denial of the Appellants’ request for an evidentiary
    hearing.     While a district court possesses broad discretion to
    deny an evidentiary hearing in its evaluation of a magistrate
    judge’s    findings       and    recommendations,        the    decision       cannot    be
    arbitrary        or   capricious.         Here,   because       the    basis    for     the
    district court’s rejection of the request for a hearing is not
    apparent     from       the     record,     we    find     ourselves         unable      to
    effectively review the court’s decision.                       On remand, then, the
    district court should either grant the hearing or set forth its
    rationale for denial.
    Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
    remand.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions       are    adequately      presented       in   the     materials
    before     the    court   and    argument       would    not    aid    the   decisional
    process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    
    By this disposition, we express no opinion on the merits
    of the Appellants’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report
    and recommendation.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1613

Citation Numbers: 462 F. App'x 305

Filed Date: 1/23/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023