Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00280/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00280-2/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

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALFONSO ROCCO MANENTE, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________

ALFONSO ROCCO MANENTE, et al.,

Cross-Complainants,

v.

DISH NETWORK Service

Corporation, a Division of

EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C., and

DOES 1 through 10,

Cross-Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-00280 OWW SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE CROSS-DEFENDANT

DISH NETWORK’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES (DOC. 37)

AND PLAINTIFF KINGVISIONS’S

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(DOC. 39)

I. INTRODUCTION

Cross-Defendant DISH Network Service L.L.C. (f/k/a DISH

Network Service Corporation) (“DISH”) and Plaintiff KINGVISION

PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD. (“KINGVISION”) move for attorney’s fees after

DISH successfully moved to dismiss the cross-claims of defendants

and cross-complainants ALFONSO ROCCO MANENTE, and MARY CATHERINE

MANENTE, individually and d/b/a MANENTE SPORTS BAR

(“Defendants”). (Doc. 37.) Defendants oppose the fee requests. 

(Doc. 40.) 

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 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 A cross-complaint, a procedure recognized under California

state law to join a party, not presently a party to an existing

party, is not authorized under federal law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

7, 13, and 14 regarding third-party practice.

2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of the complaint of Plaintiff

KINGVISION, that defendants and cross-complainants Alfonso and

Mary Manente (d/b/a Manente Sports Bar) unlawfully exhibited a

televised pay-per-view boxing match in violation of two federal

statutes, the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605) and

the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of

1992 (47 U.S.C. § 553), and state law (conversion). (Doc. 1,

Compl. ¶¶ 1, 11-23.)

On May 17, 2005, Defendants filed a “cross-complaint”

against DISH, their satellite service provider, for

indemnification on both the federal and state law claims.1 (Doc.

8, Cross-Compl. ¶¶ 8-15, 16-18, 19-21.) DISH moved to dismiss

the cross-complaint. (Doc. 14.) By order dated October 5, 2005,

the district court granted with prejudice DISH’s motion to

dismiss Defendants’ claim for indemnity on the federal cause of

action and granted with leave to amend DISH’s motion to dismiss

Defendants’ claim for indemnity on the state cause of action. 

(Doc. 33.) DISH then submitted a proposed order which included

language to the effect that DISH and KINGVISION be granted

attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants for expenses incurred

in filing DISH’s motion to dismiss and/or appearing at the

hearing on that motion. (Doc. 35.) The proposed order was

inadvertently signed and entered on November 8, 2005.

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 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

3

Plaintiff KINGVISION submitted a declaration requesting a

fee award of $1,487.50. (Doc. 36, filed Nov. 18, 2005). DISH

submitted a motion for attorneys’ fees along with three

declarations (from three separate attorneys) requesting a total

fee award of $3,628.50. (Doc. 37, filed Nov. 21, 2005.) 

Defendants oppose, arguing that neither KINGVISION nor DISH are

entitled to fees under the applicable statutory provisions and,

in the alternative, that the fee requests are unreasonable. 

(Doc. 40.)

IV. ANALYSIS

It appears that DISH’s attorneys inserted into the proposed

order language granting it attorneys fees, even though fees were

not discussed or awarded in the memorandum decision. Nor was the

subject of attorneys’ fees discussed at oral argument on the

motion.

DISH and KINGVISION base their request for fees on 47 U.S.C.

§ 553(c)(2)(C) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Both sections

provide a cause of action to “any person aggrieved” by violations

of the statutes’ substantive provisions. Among other remedies,

sections 553 and 605 provide for the award of “reasonable

attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” §§

553(c)(2), 605(e)(2)(B); (emphasis added). Neither statute

defines “aggrieved party.” 

Defendants point to one decision holding that Congress’

inclusion of the modifier “aggrieved” in these fee-shifting

provisions precludes an award of attorney’s fees to defendants. 

See VJC Prod., Inc. v. Kydes, 903 F. Supp. 42, 43-44 (S.D. Ga.

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 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

2 VJC Productions appears to be the only published case

addressing the issuance of fee awards to prevailing defendants in

cases brought under either of the statutes at issue. 

4

1995).2 The reasoning in VJC Productions is sound: 

Having authored a “two-way street” fee-shifting statute

in the past, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Congress certainly knew

how to enact the same component in 47 U.S.C. §

553(c)(2)(C) and § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). “Where Congress

knows how to say something but chooses not to, its

silence is controlling.” In re Haas, 48 F.3d 1153, 1156

(11th Cir.1995). By limiting these Cable Communications

Policy Act fee-shifting statutes to an “aggrieved”

party, rather than a mere “prevailing” party (under

which a defendant may recover fees under 42 U.S.C. §

1988), Congress signalled its intention not to

authorize fee awards for defendants in Cable Act cases.

Id. 

DISH, in response, cites Time Warner Cable of New York v.

Olmo, 977 F. Supp. 585, 590 (E.D.N.Y. 1997), in which a plaintiff

was awarded fees “as the prevailing party.” DISH emphasizes that

the Time Warner court focused on the plaintiffs’ status as a

“prevailing party” rather than the statutory terminology

“aggrieved party.” The term “prevailing party” is used in the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is a well established and

interpreted term in attorney’s fees litigation. No such wellunderstood meaning exists for a §§ 553(c)(2)(C) or 605(e)(3)(B)

“aggrieved party.” Time Warner is not on point, as that case

concerned an award to a prevailing plaintiff and the propriety of

an award to a defendant was not even at issue. 

Here, although the record would support a finding that DISH

was wrongfully sued under sections 553 and 605, there is no basis

for a finding that DISH was aggrieved by cross-complainant under

these statutes. An award of attorneys’ fees under either section

553 or section 605 to DISH is not appropriate. 

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 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

KINGVISION has not been “aggrieved” simply because it was

forced to attend the hearing on DISH’s motion to dismiss. 

Whether Plaintiff KINGVISION has been “aggrieved” under either

statutory provision by virtue of Defendants’ allegedly unlawful

broadcast of the boxing match remains to be determined during the

merits phase of this litigation. If KINGVISION prevails on the

merits, it may seek attorneys’ fees at that time. 

There may other mechanisms by which DISH can recover

attorneys’ fees. See e.g., VJC Productions, 903 F. Supp. at 44

(“Of course, nothing prevents [] defendants from seeking similar

relief under other statutes or rules, such as F.R.Civ.P. 11.”). 

No such alternative basis for relief has been advanced. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, DISH and KINGVISION’S

requests for attorneys’ fees (Docs. 36 & 37) are DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

The previously issued order on the motion to dismiss is

AMENDED BY STRIKING THE WORDS: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dish

Network and Plaintiff Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd., be granted

attorneys’ fees and costs from the Defendants concerning their

expenses to file Dish Network’s Motion to Dismiss and/or appear

at the September 19, 2005, motion hearing.”

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00280-OWW -SMS Document 43 Filed 01/13/06 Page 6 of 6