Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03571/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03571-0/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THUAN NGUYEN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-3571 SC

ORDER AND DEFAULT

JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. ("Plaintiff") offers subscriptionbased television programming via a direct broadcast satellite

system. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Thuan

Nguyen ("Defendant") for unauthorized reception of Plaintiff's

satellite signal. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four counts based

on 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4),

and state tort law. Defendant has not filed any sort of

responsive pleading nor responded in any other way to the

complaint. The Court's Clerk entered default on January 31, 2005. 

Plaintiff now moves for entry of default judgment. Because this

Court finds the allegations put forth by Plaintiff's Complaint

sufficient to support default judgment on the claim brought

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), the Motion is GRANTED solely

with respect to that claim. The other three claims are DISMISSED
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

for the reasons stated below.

"The general rule of law is that upon default the factual

allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount

of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Group,

559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Therefore, for purposes of

this Motion, the Court accepts as true the facts as portrayed in

the Complaint.

Plaintiff encrypts its satellite transmissions to prevent

unauthorized viewings of its broadcasting services. Complaint at

1. A Pirate Access Device ("Device") can be used to circumvent

the encryption. On May 25, 2001, Plaintiff executed Writs of

Seizure which resulted in possession of a variety of sales records

detailing purchases of Devices. Id. at 2. Based on these

records, Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that Defendant

purchased eight devices which were shipped to Defendant's address

in Alameda, California. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff's first three claims are based on federal statutes. 

The first claim is brought pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), which

states, among other prohibitions, "No person not being entitled

thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or

foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any

information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the

benefit of another not entitled thereto." The second claim is

brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), which states that "any

person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is

intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of [18

U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.] may in a civil action recover from the
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

person or entity ... engaged in that violation." The third claim

is brought pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), which prohibits the

manufacture, assembly, modification, import, export, sale and

distribution of devices designed to steal satellite programming

signals. As to the relationship between the first claim, under

§ 605(a), and the third claim, under § 605(e)(4), courts have

generally held that § 605(a) is aimed at end-users of Devices and

§ 605(e)(4) is aimed at traffickers in Devices. See DIRECTV, Inc.

v. Carpenter, No. 03-5247, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5124, at *17

(N.D. Cal. March 11, 2005). 

The Court notes that none of these statutes create liability

on the part of a defendant for mere possession of a Device. 

Plaintiff has offered no direct evidence that Defendant engaged in

activities beyond mere possession of the Devices. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant purchased eight Devices is

strong circumstantial evidence that Defendant violated

§ 605(e)(4)'s prohibition on trafficking the devices. The

purchase of eight Devices is unusual in that there are few

legitimate uses for eight Devices except either sale or

distribution, both of which are prohibited under the statute. 

Therefore, the Court finds that this evidence is enough to support

default judgment on the third federal claim. The Court declines,

however, to grant default judgment on the first and second claims

since there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to suggest use

of Devices by Defendant.

With respect to Plaintiff's third claim, brought pursuant to

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), Plaintiff may recover "statutory damages in
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

a sum not less than $10,000 or more than $100,000, as the court

considers just." 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(II). Furthermore,

under § 605(e)(4), "prohibited activity ... as it applies to each

such device shall be deemed a separate violation." 47 U.S.C. §

605(e)(4). Because default judgment rests solely on the fact that

Defendant purchased multiple Devices and on no other direct

evidence, the Court hereby awards $10,000 for each device, or a

total of $80,000, to Plaintiff for violation of § 605(e)(4).

Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action is a state tort conversion

claim. Complaint at 6. Having reviewed the papers submitted by

Plaintiff with respect to the Motion now before the Court, it does

not appear that Plaintiff has requested default judgment on this

claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff has filed notice with this Court

that it does not intend to pursue the claim. See September 2,

2005 Notice by DirecTV. Therefore, the Court declines to grant

default or award damages for the Fourth Cause of Action and

dismisses the claim.

Plaintiff has also moved for an award of attorneys' fees. A

party who prevails under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)

and (e)(4) is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 

18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff

claims $2,820.60 in attorneys' fees and costs. Motion at 18. 

Given the number of similar suits filed by Plaintiff in this

district alone, the Court questions the level of work carried out

on the particular suit which is the subject of this Order. 

Plaintiff states that such fees have been pro rated among similar

lawsuits to ameliorate this concern. Declaration of Sandeep J.
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 5

Shah at 3. Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the docket

activity report for this case and noted that Plaintiff's attorneys

carried out substantive work for this case including the filing of

a complaint, a motion for entry of default, a case management

statement, and the instant Motion and supporting documents. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged amount is within a

reasonable range. On the other hand, the Court notes that the

alleged figure of $2,820.60 includes $765 in attorneys' fees for

attending the hearing related to this Motion. Id. at 4. As

recorded in the docket report for this case, Plaintiff's attorney

moved for a telephonic hearing with regard to this Motion. The

Court, however, notified Plaintiff's attorneys that the instant

Motion would be decided on the papers and there was no hearing. 

Therefore, the Court finds that $2,820.60 less $765, or $2,055.60

is an appropriate amount for Plaintiff to recover in attorneys'

fees and costs.

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Default

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on the Third

Cause of Action. The other three Causes of Action are hereby

DISMISSED. In conjunction with this Judgment, the Court hereby

awards Plaintiff $80,000 for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). 

The Court also awards Plaintiffs $2,055.60 in attorneys' fees and

costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE