Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03568/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03568-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

BNFY 375154v1 1 (CV-04 3568 VRW)

[PROPOSED] DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CARLOS ARGUETA

Alan J. Kessel (Cal. Bar No.: 130707)

Suzanne M. Burke (Cal. Bar No.: 188597)

Kimberly R. Colombo (Cal. Bar No.: 210451)

BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER

A Professional Corporation

18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800

Irvine, CA 92612-0514

Telephone: (949) 760-1121

Facsimile: (949) 720-0182

E-Mail: btran@buchalter.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DIRECTV, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARLOS ARGUETA,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CV-04-3568 VRW

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

[PROPOSED] DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AGAINST DEFENDANT CARLOS

ARGUETA

Date: July 14, 2005

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor

IT APPEARING from the records in the above-entitled action that the default of

Defendant CARLOS ARGUETA (“Defendant”) was entered on February 7, 2005 for failure to

respond or to otherwise defend the Complaint for damages;

IT FURTHER APPEARING from the Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant

filed herein that Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”)’s claim for damages is for a sum that

can, by computation, be made certain;

IT FURTHER APPEARING that there is no just reason for delay in entering final

judgment in this matter as to Defendant and that final judgment shall be entered against said

Defendant;

Case 3:04-cv-03568-VRW Document 18-1 Filed 05/06/2005 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

27

28

BNFY 375154v1 2 (CV-04 3568 VRW)

[PROPOSED] DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CARLOS ARGUETA

IT FURTHER APPEARING from the Declaration of counsel for DIRECTV dated

May 6, 2005, that Defendant is not an infant or incompetent person;

IT FURTHER APPEARING from the Declaration of counsel for DIRECTV dated

May 6, 2005, that Defendant is not in military service or otherwise exempted under the

Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act;

IT FURTHER APPEARING that DIRECTV alleges, and Defendant has admitted through

his default, that Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2510, et seq. and the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.;

IT FURTHER APPEARING that, although 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides for statutory

damages for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of whichever is the greater

of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, and although DIRECTV has submitted that Defendant

violated the statute on 1,103 days (the date of his purchase of the illegal devices through April 30, 

2004, the date after which it appears the subject devices could not have been effective to modify

DIRECTV Access Cards), DIRECTV only requested in its Complaint statutory damages of

$10,000 per illegal device purchased and used by Defendant;

IT FURTHER APPEARING that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3), DIRECTV is

entitled to damages for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) in the amount, at DIRECTV’s option,

of either DIRECTV’s actual damages or statutory damages in the sum of not less than $10,000, or 

more than $100,000, for each violation, in addition to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. For

purposes of assessing damages under § 605(e)(4), the prohibited activity “as it applies to each

such device shall be deemed a separate violation.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). DIRECTV has opted

in its Prayer for Relief in the Complaint to pursue statutory damages of $10,000 per illegal device 

purchased and used in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) of the Federal Communications Act of

1934;

IT FURTHER APPEARING that DIRECTV, as the prevailing party in this action, is

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3) and 47 U.S.C.

§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) incurred in prosecuting this action against Defendant and DIRECTV has

submitted evidence of the amount of those fees incurred;

Case 3:04-cv-03568-VRW Document 18-1 Filed 05/06/2005 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

27

28

BNFY 375154v1 3 (CV-04 3568 VRW)

[PROPOSED] DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CARLOS ARGUETA

NOW THEREFORE, upon the request of counsel for DIRECTV, Judgment shall be

entered as follows:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3), as against Defendant

CARLOS ARGUETA, and in favor of Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc., the sum of $20,000 (two (2)

devices purchased and used by Defendant x $10,000), plus post-judgment interest thereon at the

legal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of entry of this Judgment;

2. An award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,075.50; and

3. Costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, subject to the filing of a Bill of Costs in

compliance with the Local Rules of this Court.

Dated:

Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:04-cv-03568-VRW Document 18-1 Filed 05/06/2005 Page 3 of 5

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Vaughn R Walker