Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02563/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02563-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN W. SCOTT,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-2563-JAM-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC commenced this action on November 3, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, on or about November 3, 2013, defendant displayed DIRECTV 

satellite programming, including National Football League games, at defendant’s establishment, 

Scotty’s Boat Landing in Chico, California, to the public for commercial benefit without 

obtaining valid commercial exhibition rights. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Cable 

Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(c); violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511; and civil 

conversion. (See ECF No. 2.) 

A proof of service filed with the court indicates that defendant was personally served with 

process on December 9, 2014. (ECF No. 6.)

On January 5, 2015, defendant filed what the Clerk of Court has liberally construed and

docketed as an answer. (ECF No. 5.) Most of that document consists of plaintiff’s original 

Case 2:14-cv-02563-JAM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint, the summons, and other initial case documents on which defendant has simply written

the following on each page: “I do not consent to Respondent’s offer to contract; I do not consent 

to Respondent’s jurisdiction; I do not consent to this proceeding.” Defendant also attached 

several pages of nonsensical commentary setting forth Sovereign Citizen-type ideology.

On January 22, 2015, in light of the appearance of defendant without counsel, the district 

judge issued a minute order referring the case to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c)(21). (ECF No. 8.) The court then set a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for April 

16, 2015, requiring the parties to meet and confer, and file a joint status report addressing 

specified topics not less than 14 days prior to the conference. (ECF No. 10.)

Subsequently, on April 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a status report on its own behalf. (ECF No. 

11.) The status report indicates that plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to communicate with 

defendant, despite attempting contact by e-mail, telephone, and letter.

Finally, on April 13, 2015, defendant filed a “Third Party Intervener’s Plea in Abatement 

for Want of Personal, Territorial, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 13.) That 

document is again filled with largely unintelligible Sovereign Citizen-type challenges to the 

authority and jurisdiction of this court.

At the April 16, 2015 status conference, attorney Christopher Hufnagel appeared 

telephonically on behalf of plaintiff and defendant failed to appear. (ECF No. 14.) Consistent 

with the discussions at the status conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s purported answer (ECF No. 5) is STRICKEN for failure to comply with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Within 21 days of this order, defendant shall file an amended answer to plaintiff’s 

complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The amended answer shall be captioned “First Amended 

Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

3. Failure to file an amended answer by the required deadline OR failure to file an 

amended answer that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will result in 

an order striking that pleading and directing the Clerk of Court to enter defendant’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02563-JAM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

default, whereupon plaintiff will be permitted to move for a default judgment.

4. Once a compliant answer is filed, the court will set further dates for filing a joint status 

report and/or a further status conference. 

5. Defendant is cautioned that future failure to comply with any court order, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, or this court’s Local Rules1may result in the imposition of 

any appropriate sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 17, 2015

 

 

1 A copy of the court’s Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office or on the court’s 

website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/.

Case 2:14-cv-02563-JAM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 3