Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00983/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00983-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT PRIMER, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-03-983 FCD PAN 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-o0oOn October 26, 2005, the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr.,

reopened this case to proceed with plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against remaining

defendant Gustavo Rodriquez. Plaintiff filed its motion for

default judgment against Rodriquez on July 26, 2004, but later

sought dismissal of the entire action which Judge Damrell

approved February 11, 2005. Judge Damrell reopened the case upon

plaintiff’s showing its request for dismissal had been

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

inadvertent.

Plaintiff commenced this action May 9, 2003, alleging

that Rodriquez and others obtained unauthorized reception of

satellite signals in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a),

unauthorized reception of electronic communications in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), possession of pirate access devices in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b), and conversion.

The only allegation of the complaint specific to

Rodriquez states in full (Complaint, para. 13): 

On or about July 20, 2000, defendant Gustavo Rodriquez

purchased a Pirate Access Device, consisting of a printed

circuit board device called a ‘Wildthing 2 Unlooper,’ from

Shutt [Shutt, Inc., an alleged source of pirate

technologies]. The device was shipped to defendant Gustavo

Rodriquez at defendant’s address in Sacramento, California.

Default was entered against Rodriquez on December 24,

2003, due to his failure to appear or otherwise respond to the

complaint despite personal service of process October 6, 2003. 

Plaintiff moves for default judgment for $10,000.00

statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B) for one

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), plus post-judgment interest

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

By his default defendant admitted the well-pleaded

allegations of the complaint except damages. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d). Accordingly, defendant Rodriquez admits unauthorized

purchase of a pirate access device; he admits neither how long he

possessed the device nor even that he used it. 

////

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 5
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

1 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) provides “any person who–intentionally

intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept

or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication . . .

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) [‘fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than five years, or both’] or shall be subject to suit as

provided in subsection (5) [authorizing federal government to seek injunctive

relief and fine].”;

2 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) provides “In any other action under this

section, the court may assess as damages whichever is the greater of–(A) the

sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by

the violator as a result of the violation; or (B) statutory damages of

whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.”

3

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) is a criminal statute applicable

to “any person who (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to

intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor

to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication.”1 18

U.S.C. § 2520(a) creates a private right of action under 18

U.S.C. § 2511, and 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) permits an award of

damages calculated according to “the greater of” (1) actual

damages, (2) $100 a day for each day of violation, or (3)

$10,000.2

There is no matter of right to the entry of default

judgment and it is within the court’s reasonable discretion, even

when the defendant is technically in default. Lewis v. Lynn, 236

F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915,

924 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1980). A court should consider the following factors before

entering default judgment: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to

the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim,

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

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, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), at 1471-1472, citing

6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26. 

Application of these factors demonstrates the complaint

is insufficiently plead to support a finding Rodriquez admits the

material allegations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) or that the injury

to DirecTV meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a). The

former statute penalizes the actual interception or attempt to

intercept plaintiff’s electronic communication; the latter

requires that plaintiff’s electronic communication be

“intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used.” None of these

material facts are alleged against Rodriquez–the complaint

alleges no more than Rodriquez’ purchase of a pirate access

device. Cf., Nalley v. Nalley, 53 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir. 1995)

(court may decline to award statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. §

2520(c)(2) where violation is di minimis); DirecTV, Inc. V. Kaas,

294 F.Supp.2d 1044, 1049 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (presumptive award of

$10,000 is excessive where DirecTV offered no evidence of actual

damages or duration of defendant’s use of pirate access device). 

At most, Rodriquez’ purchase may be actionable pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b) (making criminal the possession of an

interception device received by mail); however, 18 U.S.C. § 2520

does not create a private right of action for mere possession.

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/28/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Accordingly, I recommend that default judgment be denied

against defendant Gustavo Rodriquez and the action against him

dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 28, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/28/05 Page 5 of 5