G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. AIB NC, LLC et al

1 / 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-04700
AIB NC, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G&G”) and Defendants
AIB NC, LLC and Adrian Borza’s renewed cross Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 34
& 35). The Court held a hearing on the motions on January 23, 2026. Because genuine material
disputes of fact remain, the Court now DENIES both motions.
A. Background
Plaintiff is a broadcast licenser. Defendant AIB NC, LLC is the owner of Caballo Stop &
Drive Thru. See ECF No. 24, Ex. B. Defendant Adrian Borza is the manager1 of AIB NC, LLC.
Id. According to Plaintiff, it was the exclusive domestic licensor of (among other programs) the
December 19, 2020 Alvarez vs. Smith Championship Fight Program (“the Event”) for commercial
establishments in the United States, including the “undercard” fight between Frank Sanchez and
Julian Fernandez. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 6-7.
1 Plaintiff refers to Mr. Borza as the “sole member and/or manager” of AIB NC, LLC and supporting documents refer
to Mr. Borza as the “manager.” See ECF No. 26 at 5; ECF No. 24, Ex. B. Defendants have not objected to this
characterization. Thus, the Court will adopt the parties’ term.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

2 / 8
Plaintiff alleges that its “auditor” observed the Sanchez/Fernandez fight being broadcast
live to patrons of Defendants’ business, Caballo Stop & Drive Thru. See ECF No. 24, Ex. A-2.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant did not have authorization from Plaintiff to broadcast the
Event and thus violated the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10.
In its original Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff presented the following evidence
of Defendants’ liability:
• 	Declaration of Thomas P. Riley, records custodian for the Law Office of Thomas
P. Riley, attesting that Plaintiff had exclusive right to license the Event in question
to commercial establishments in the United States, that Defendants did not obtain
authorization from Plaintiff to broadcast the Event, and that the boxing match
between Frank Sanchez and Julian Fernandez was part of the Alvarez vs. Smith
Event to which Plaintiff had the exclusive commercial licensing rights. ECF No.
24, Ex. A.
• 	Master Services Agreement between Plaintiff and DAZN, Limited, licensor of
DAZN boxing events. ECF No. 24, Ex. A-1.
• 	Affidavit of John C. Sieminski, stating that Mr. Sieminski entered Caballo Stop &
Drive Thru, on the night of December 19, 2020, and observed multiple TVs
broadcasting the Sanchez vs. Fernandez fight. ECF No. 24, Ex. A-2.
• 	The “Rate Card” for the Alvarez v. Smith Championship Fight. ECF No. 24, Ex.
A-3.
• 	Documents from the Harris County Clerk’s Office, the Texas Secretary of State’s
Office, the Office of the Texas State Comptroller, and a Sales Taxpayer Search
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

3 / 8
which purport to show that Defendant AIB NC, LLC conducts business as Caballo
Stop & Drive Thru and that Defendant Adrian Borza is the sole manager and
member of AIB NC, LLC ECF No. 24, Ex. B.
Defendants submit no independent evidence in either their original or their renewed
Motions for Summary Judgment.
The Court denied Plaintiff’s original Motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff had
not shown the absence of a factual dispute with regard to whether Plaintiff has the exclusive right
to license the Canelo v. Smith Boxing Event (“the Event”). See Minute Entry of September 9,
2025. Specifically, the Court noted that the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) and attached
documents (collectively, “the Agreement”) did not list the Event in question, despite listing other
covered Boxing matches. The MSA also states that “[a]ny and all rights not expressly granted to
Licensee under this Agreement are reserved by DAZN.” ECF No. 24, Ex. 1-A at 15. The attached
Statement of Work 3, which extended the MSA, states that “[s]hould DAZN schedule additional
events, [Plaintiff] will prepare and provide DAZN additional rate card[s] for its review and
approval.” ECF No. 24, Ex. 1-A at 34. Plaintiff produced no evidence that it ever provided DAZN
with the rate card for the Event in question or that DAZN approved the rate card. Plaintiff did
produce a declaration from its lawyer and records custodian, Thomas P. Riley,2 stating that the
Agreement covered the Event in question, but Mr. Riley was not a signatory to the Agreement and
Plaintiff gave the Court no evidence that Mr. Riley had personal knowledge of its contents. The
Court therefore found a material dispute of fact as to whether Plaintiff had the exclusive right to
license the Event.
2 Mr. Riley does not represent Plaintiff in this case.
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

4 / 8
The Court held a pretrial conference on October 17, 2025, at which the parties agreed to
vacate the trial date and attempt to resolve the case through renewed Motions for Summary
Judgment. See Minute Entry of October 17, 2025. These Motions are now before the Court.
B. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
In its renewed Motion Plaintiff produces three additional pieces of evidence to support its
contention that it had the exclusive right to license the Event:
• 	Declaration of Nicholas Gagliardi, President of Plaintiff G&G and signatory of the MSA
and related documents on G&G’s behalf, stating that the Event was intended to be covered
by the MSA. EXF No. 33, Ex. 1.
• 	Email communications between Mr. Gagliardi and various representatives of DAZN and
AT&T, discussing the programming for and broadcast of the Event in question. ECF No.
33, Ex. 1-A.
• 	A Wikipedia page for the Event, stating that the Canelo v. Alvarez fight was not
announced until November 17, 2020. ECF No. 33, Ex. 1-B.
i. 	Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections
At the outset, the Court agrees with Defendants that the Wikipedia page for the Canelo v.
Smith boxing match is inadmissible. Even if it were considered, the Court does not believe it
changes the outcome in this case, as the same information regarding the announcement date of the
Event is included in Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration.
Defendants raise several other evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s proffered evidence.
First, Defendants argue that Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration is inadmissible because (1) Mr. Gagliardi
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

5 / 8
was not disclosed as a witness during the discovery period and (2) the declaration contains
inadmissible hearsay statements by unnamed representatives of DAZN. At the hearing, Defendants
also raised an objection to any testimony regarding the contents of the Master Services Agreement
on best evidence grounds. Defendants raise similar objections to the email exchanges submitted
with Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s new exhibits are admissible
except as to certain portions of Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration.
The Court declines to exclude the evidence provided in Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion on the
basis that it was not timely produced. Since the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the basis that a genuine dispute existed as to whether the Event in question
was covered by the Agreement, it was predictable that Plaintiff would submit additional evidence
on this point. Moreover, Defendants are not prejudiced by the additional evidence, given they were
aware that Plaintiff’s position was that the Event was covered by the Agreement.
As to hearsay, the Court agrees with Defendants that any statements in Mr. Gagliardi’s
declaration purporting to represent DAZN’s understanding of the Master Services Agreement and
attachments are inadmissible hearsay. However, Mr. Gagliardi’s statements regarding his own
understanding of the contract are admissible. Mr. Gagliardi was a signatory to the Master Services
Agreement, and his understanding of its terms is not hearsay and clearly within his personal
knowledge. The emails attached to the declaration are not hearsay. These emails are not provided
for the truth of what they assert—various technical details pertaining to the Canelo v. Smith
broadcast—but rather to demonstrate Plaintiff and DAZN’s shared understanding that Plaintiff
G&G had the exclusive right to license the Event.
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

6 / 8
On the best evidence exception to Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration, the Court understands Mr.
Gagliardi as attesting to his understanding of the terms of the Master Services Agreement and
attachments, rather than as referencing other, additional writings that were not produced. Plaintiff
has produced the Master Services Agreement. The best evidence rule is thus inapplicable.
ii. 	Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment
Even considering Plaintiff’s additional admissible evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to show that there is no dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff’s exclusive right to license
the Event in question. While Mr. Gagliardi’s declaration and emails certainly could suggest that
Plaintiff in fact had the right to license the Event, a jury could reasonably conclude from Plaintiff’s
failure to produce any written documentation to this effect that specifically names the Event in
question that it did not meet its burden on this point, particularly in light of the no oral
modifications clause in the Master Services Agreement and the protocol for adding additional
Events described in the Statement of Works 3.
Since this is an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, the Court need not address whether
Plaintiff has met its summary judgment burden as to the other elements of its claim.
C. Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ 	Renewed 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	(ECF No. 	34) 	argues 	that
Defendants are entitled to complete summary judgment because (1) Plaintiff has failed to show it
had the exclusive right to license the event, (2) Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant showed
the event at their establishment, (3) Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants did not have
authorization to show the event, and (4) Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Borza is
individually liable.
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

7 / 8
The Court previously denied Defendant Borza’s original Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 23) because it found that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to Mr. Borza’s
individual liability. See Minute Entry of September 9, 2025. It declines to reconsider its prior ruling
on that issue. Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to
establish that Defendants’ establishment showed the Event and that Defendant did not have
authorization is similarly unavailing. The Court finds the declarations of Mr. Riley and Mr.
Sieminski sufficient to establish a factual dispute as to whether Defendants showed the event at
their establishment and whether Defendants had authorization to show the event. The Court
overruled Defendant’s objections to the admissibility of these declarations at the September 9
hearing.3
Defendant’s argument as to Plaintiff’s right to license the event presents a closer question,
but the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to overcome summary judgment in
Defendant’s favor. While the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s apparent inability to produce a written
document explicitly granting them the right to license the Event in question is odd, a reasonable
jury could nonetheless conclude that Plaintiff had the exclusive right to license the Canelo v. Smith
boxing Event. Taken together, the Master Services Agreement and attachments, Plaintiff’s “Rate
Card” for the Alvarez v. Smith Championship Fight, the admissible portions of Mr. Gagliardi’s
declaration, and the email exchanges between Mr. Gagliardi and representatives of DAZN could
support a reasonable inference that both G&G and DAZN understood their agreement as providing
3 While the portions of Mr. Riley’s declaration pertaining to whether the Event in question is
covered by the MSA may not be admissible because of lack of personal knowledge, the Court
found that Mr. Riley’s declaration was admissible to show the lack of any record of payment by
Defendants to Plaintiff to license the Event.
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

8 / 8
G&G the exclusive right to license this Event. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court will issue a Notice to parties setting a new date for trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on February 11, 2026.
_______________________________
Keith P. Ellison
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-04700 Document 39 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8