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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation, 

NO. CIV. S-03-983 FCD PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

ROBERT PRIMER, et al., 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s objections

to the finding and recommendations of the magistrate judge, filed

November 28, 2005 (“F&R”), denying plaintiff’s request for entry

of default judgment against defendant Gustavo Rodriguez

(“defendant”). For the reasons set forth below, the court does

not adopt the findings and recommendations in their entirety,

however, concurs with the magistrate judge’s denial of

plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment against

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Although plaintiff’s complaint alleged defendant

violated 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), plaintiff did not move for statutory

damages for such violation or attorneys’ fees in its request for

entry of default judgment. Therefore, the court does not

consider an award of damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) or an award

of attorneys’ fees.

2

defendant.

When timely objections to findings by a magistrate judge are

filed, the district court must conduct a de novo determination of

the findings and recommendations as to issues of law. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). The district court may adopt, reject, or modify in

part or in full the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C).

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 9, 2003, alleging

that defendant obtained unauthorized reception of satellite

signals in violation fo 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 device in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b), and conversion. (F&R at 2). Due to his

failure to appear or otherwise respond to the complaint despite

personal service, default was entered against defendant on

December 24, 2003. (Id.) Thereafter, plaintiff moved for

default judgment against defendant for $10,000 in statutory

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

of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).1 (Id.) 

Judge Nowinski’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s request

for entry of default against defendant was based on his

conclusion that plaintiff failed to establish defendant’s “use”

of a pirate access device, which is essential to show a violation

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 6
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 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) makes it a crime to

intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any

other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire,

oral or electronic communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (West

2006). In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) creates a private right

of action for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). 18 U.S.C. §

2520(a) (West 2006).

3

of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).2 (F&R at 4). However, plaintiff

properly alleged that defendant “purchased and used” a pirate

access device in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). (Pl.’s

Compl., filed May 9, 2003, at ¶¶ 7, 20). Therefore, by his

default, defendant admits unauthorized “purchase and use” of a

pirate access device. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Accordingly,

plaintiff has properly established a violation 18 U.S.C. §

2511(1)(a). 

Notwithstanding the above, Judge Nowinski correctly

concluded that there is no matter of right to the entry of

default judgment and that entry of default 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). Moreover, the court

“has broad discretion to award damages as authorized by statute,

or to award no damages at all.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Kaas, 294

F.Supp. 2d 1044, 1048 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (quoting Reynolds v.

Spears, 93 F.3d 428, 435 (8th Cir. 1996)). 

Plaintiff moved for default judgement pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 2520(c)(2) for the statutory maximum of $10,000. (F&R at 2). 

18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) states that: 

the court may assess as damages whichever is the

greater of--

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 3 of 6
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) 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.

18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) (emphasis added). “The use of ‘may’ in

the statute indicates that the award of damages under this

section is discretionary.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Agee, ___ F.Supp. 2d

___, 2005 WL 3455263 at *5 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Reynolds, 93

F.3d at 434); See also DirecTV v. Brown, 371 F.3d 814, 819 (11th

Cir. 2004) (agreeing with the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits

that an award of damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) is

discretionary). Contra Rodgers v. Wood, 910 F.2d 444, 448 (7th

Cir. 1990). The proper inquiry for a district court awarding

damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) is as follows: (1) the court

should first determine the amount of actual damages to the

plaintiff plus the profits derived by the violator, if any; (2)

the court should next ascertain the number of days that the

statute was violated and multiply by $100; (3) the court should

then tentatively award the plaintiff the greater of (1) or (2),

unless each is less than $10,000, in which case $10,000 is to be

the presumed award; and (4) finally, the court should exercise

its discretion to determine whether the plaintiff should receive

any award at all. Kaas, 294 F.Supp. 2d at 1049. 

Using this formula, the Kaas court concluded that the

presumptive award of damages was $10,000 because plaintiff

offered no evidence of its actual damages, nor any evidence of

how many days the defendant used the pirate access device. Id.

However, the Kaas court determined that the statutory award of

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 4 of 6
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

$10,000 was excessive where there was no evidence that the

defendant did more than receive the pirate access device. Id.

The Kaas court further determined there was no evidence, other

than a reasonable assumption, that the defendant ever used the

private access device. Id. The Kaas court ultimately exercised

its discretion to award no damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2). 

Id. In exercising its discretion, the Kaas court concluded “it

logical that Congress chose to make the award of such damages

discretionary, given the potential of the law to bring financial

ruin to persons of modest means, even in cases of trivial

transgressions.” Id. (quoting Reynolds, 93 F.3d at 435). 

In addition to the present action and Kaas, plaintiff

DirecTV has brought numerous other suits throughout the nation

based on similar facts for violations of the statutes implicated

herein. See generally Agee, 2005 WL 3455263; DirecTV, Inc. v.

Chorba, 2005 WL 3095067 (M.D.Pa. 2005); DirecTV, Inc. v.

Sheffield, 2005 WL 563108 (D.Minn. 2005); In re DirecTV, Inc.,

2004 WL 2645971 (N.D.Cal. 2004); DirecTV, Inc. v. Zieker, 2004

WL 1682777 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). Many district courts have followed

Kaas and exercised their discretion to award no damages under 18

U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2). See, e.g., Brown, 371 F.3d at 819 (holding

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

an award of damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)); Agee, 2005 WL

3455263 at *5 (concluding statutory damages of $10,000 were

excessive where no evidence existed to support the conclusion

that the defendant’s actions resulted in actual damages to the

plaintiff); Zieker, 2004 WL 1682777 at *4 (concluding an award of

$10,000 was excessive where plaintiff provided no information

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

regarding defendant’s violation of the statute on a daily basis). 

In this case, plaintiff has offered no evidence to

demonstrate that plaintiff suffered actual damages nor evidence

regarding the number of days that defendant used the pirate

access device. The presumptive award of damages under 18 U.S.C.

§ 2520(c)(2) is $10,000. However, there is no evidence that

defendant ever used the pirate access device, only that he

received it. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion and

makes no award of damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2). 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request for entry of

default judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 21, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00983-FCD-PAN Document 43 Filed 02/21/06 Page 6 of 6