Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03399/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03399-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

DUONG LE,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-03399 JW 

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for default

judgment against Defendant Duong Le (“Defendant”) pursuant to Rule 55, FED. R. CIV. P. Defendant

has neither appeared in this action nor submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Based upon all

papers filed to date, as well as the telephonic oral argument of Plaintiff’s attorney, Brandon Tran, on

June 20, 2005, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment against Defendant.

II. BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2004, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for violations of the Federal

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq., the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and California common law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

purchased and used two Pirate Access Devices consisting of “Terminator SU2 Unloopers,” which are

designed to permit viewing of DIRECTV’s television programming without authorization by or

payment to DIRECTV. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise defend the action. On

April 5, 2005, the Clerk of this Court entered default as to Defendant Duong Le. On May 16, 2005,

Case 5:04-cv-03399-JW Document 27 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff filed this Motion for Default Judgment.

III. STANDARDS

 Upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the

amount of damages, will be taken as true. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th

Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). In exercising its discretion to grant

default judgment, the court may consider the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the

plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the

sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)

whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72

(9th Cir. 1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Damages

 Plaintiff’s motion requests statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 for

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Previously, in the context of another

case brought by Plaintiff, this Court concluded that DIRECTV’s services are covered by both the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and the Federal Communications

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq. See DIRECTV v. Tom Thai, C 04-03471 JW, April 7, 2005

Order Granting Default Judgment at 5:10-11. However, because the damage to DIRECTV is caused

by the same underlying conduct, the Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiff to elect which of the two

statutes it is seeking relief under. 

During oral argument, Plaintiff elected to pursue damages exclusively under 47 U.S.C. §

605(e)(4), which prohibits any person from manufacturing, assembling, modifying, importing,

exporting, selling, or distributing any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment that is

primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-tohome satellite services. The Complaint alleges that Defendant “knowingly manufactured, assembled,

Case 5:04-cv-03399-JW Document 27 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

sold, distributed, or modified an electronic, mechanical or other device or equipment knowing, or

having reason to know, that the device or equipment is used primarily in the assistance of the

unauthorized decryption of satellite programming, or direct-to-home services, or is intended for any

other prohibited activity.” (Complaint ¶ 23.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant “actively

programmed and reprogrammed DIRECTV Access Cards and designed electronic systems for use in

surreptitiously obtaining DIRECTV satellite programming. Further, by removing and inserting Pirate

Access Devices and/or inserting illegally programmed Access Cards into valid DIRECTV Receivers,

Defendant engaged in the unlawful assembly and/or modification of devices primarily of assistance in

the unauthorized decryption of satellite programming.” (Id.) Construing these allegations as true for

purposes of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, the Court finds that Defendant is liable to

Plaintiff for relief under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4).

For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4),

the prohibited activity established in that paragraph as it applies to each such device shall be deemed

a separate violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Therefore, the court awards Plaintiff statutory damages

in the amount of $10,000 for each of Defendant’s two violations of § 605(e)(4), for a total award of

$20,000.

B. Attorneys’ Fees

 Plaintiff seeks an award of the attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action against

Defendant in the amount of $3237.60. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), Plaintiff is entitled to

recover full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s attorneys’

fees in this action and finds both the hours spent and the rate of compensation to be reasonable. 

Therefore, the court will award Plaintiff its full amount of attorneys’ fees associated with this action.

V. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff

is awarded damages against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 in statutory damages and $3237.60 in

Case 5:04-cv-03399-JW Document 27 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

attorneys’ fees for a total of $23,237.60. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 54,

FED. R. CIV. P. and is directed to file a Bill of costs in compliance with the Local Rules of this Court.

Dated: June 20, 2005

04cv3399dj

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03399-JW Document 27 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan J. Kessel Akessel@buchalter.com

Brandon Quoc Tran btran@buchalter.com

Kimberly Rene Colombo kkatz@buchalter.com

Suzanne M. Burke sburke@buchalter.com

Dated: June 20, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /jwchambers/ 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03399-JW Document 27 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 5