Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-25-183-G

)

ZAINA RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a )

ZAMZAM MEDITERRANEAN GRILL )

et al., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. initiated this action on February 11, 2025,

seeking damages from Defendants Zaina Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a ZamZam Mediterranean

Grill (“Zaina”) and Yousef H. Elyassin. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Now before the Court

are Defendant Elyassin’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) and Plaintiff’s Response in

opposition (Doc. No. 12).

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a corporation “that specializes in distributing

and licensing premier sporting events to commercial, non-residential establishments

including bars, restaurants, clubhouses, shops, and similar locations.” Compl. ¶ 6.

Defendant Zaina “operates, maintains and controls the establishment known as ZamZam

Mediterranean Grill” (“ZamZam”) in Warr Acres, Oklahoma. Id. ¶ 4. On the relevant

dates, Defendant Elyassin: was an owner of Zaina; operated, maintained, and controlled

ZamZam; and “had a right and ability to supervise the activities of” ZamZam. Id. ¶ 5.

Plaintiff held the exclusive commercial license to distribute and authorize the public

display of the nationwide telecasts of Ultimate Fighting Championship® Nos. 284, 285,

287, and 288 (the “Programs”) to businesses such as ZamZam. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7. Defendants

“took affirmative steps to circumvent the commercial sublicensing requirement and

unlawfully obtained each of the Programs via a satellite signal or, in the alternative, via a

cable signal.” Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants: willfully engaged in wrongful

acts to intercept and/or receive the Programs for free or at a nominal cost or assisted in

such actions, while Plaintiff’s legitimate customers paid substantially more for the proper

commercial sublicenses; knew, or should have known, the interception and/or receipt and

exhibition of the Programs at ZamZam was not authorized; intentionally pirated or assisted

in the intentional piracy of the Programs for the sole purpose of their own economic gain;

and exhibited the Programs for the commercial purpose of attracting paying customers,

patrons, and guests, thereby wrongfully benefiting financially by infringing upon

Plaintiff’s rights. Id. ¶¶ 12-14. “Defendants did not have license, authorization,

permission, or consent from Plaintiff to exhibit any of the Programs” at ZamZam. Id. ¶ 15.

II. Standard of Review

Defendant Elyassin seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See

Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1-3. In analyzing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the

court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view[s]

them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,

Inc., 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2013). “[T]o withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact, taken as true, ‘to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190

(10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While

the Rule 12(b)(6) standard does not require that a plaintiff establish a prima facie case in

the pleading, the court discusses the essential elements of each alleged cause of action to

better “determine whether [the plaintiff] has set forth a plausible claim.” Id. at 1192.

A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it lacks

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the

assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a

complaint are not entitled to the assumption of truth; “they must be supported by factual

allegations” to state a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that, on account of their willful and unauthorized exhibitions of the

Programs, Defendants are liable for satellite piracy under 47 U.S.C. § 605 or, alternatively,

for cable piracy under 47 U.S.C. § 553. See Compl. ¶¶ 18-23.

Section 605 “prohibits the publication of any unauthorized interception or receipt

of any wire or radio communication,” as well any communication transmitted by satellite.

G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Alvarez, No. CIV-20-392-SLP, 2020 WL 12772099, at

*1 n.3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 553

“prohibits the unauthorized interception or receipt of any communications service offered

over a cable system.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish liability under

either statute, “a plaintiff must prove that a defendant unlawfully exhibited, published or

divulged a privileged communication and the signal transmitting that communication was

delivered to the intercepting party by way of a satellite or cable transmission.” J & J Sports

Prods., Inc. v. Brady, No. CIV-15-454-HE, 2016 WL 8650479, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 23,

2016) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendant Elyassin’s Motion does not cite or discuss §§ 605 and 533 or the

requirements to plead violation of these statutes. Instead, Defendant Elyassin argues that

Plaintiff fails to state an actionable negligence claim under Oklahoma law and that Plaintiff

may not bring suit against Defendant Elyassin under Oklahoma law based solely upon

Defendant Elyassin’s supervisory role at ZamZam. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (citing

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 682(B)). Defendant Elyassin’s focus upon whether Plaintiff has

plausibly pleaded nonexistent state-law claims entirely ignores the federal claims expressly

identified in the Complaint as the basis for Defendants’ alleged liability. See Compl. ¶¶ 1,

20-23. Stated differently, the Motion to Dismiss fails to explain why the pleading

allegations, if true, would not show that Defendant Elyassin “unlawfully exhibited . . . a

privileged communication” delivered via satellite or cable. J & J Sports Prods., 2016 WL

8650479, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

Brown, No. CIV-08-482-M, 2009 WL 3157369, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2009) (“[F]or

an individual defendant to be vicariously liable, the plaintiff must show that the individual

defendant had a right and ability to supervise the violations and that he had a strong

financial interest in such activities.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendant

Elyassin therefore has not shown that he is entitled to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION

Defendant Yousef H. Elyassin’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2026.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN

United States District Judge