Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03400/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03400-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

MATTHEW JOSEPH,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 04-03400 JW 

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for default

judgment against Defendant Matthew Joseph (“Defendant”) pursuant to Rule 55, FED. R. CIV. P. 

Defendant has neither appeared in this action nor submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. On

Monday, May 23, 2005, this Court held a hearing regarding Plaintiff’s motion. Based upon all papers

filed to date, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment against Defendant.

II. BACKGROUND

On December 24, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Compensatory, Statutory and Other

Damages, and Injunctive Relief against Defendant and four other defendants in DIRECTV, Inc. v.

Lawrence Bittner, et al., C 02-05912 JW. Default was entered against Defendant on March 20, 2003. 

Default judgment was granted against Defendant on July 23, 2003 for $10,000.00. On July 26, 2004,

the default judgment against Defendant was vacated pursuant to this Court’s Order Regarding Limited

Assignment to Determine Issues Regarding Joinder of Defendants and Showing Needed to Establish

Prima Facia Case Under Statutory Claims. 

Case 5:04-cv-03400-JW Document 27 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Pursuant to this Court’s July 26, 2004 Order, Plaintiff refiled a complaint against Defendant on

August 19, 2004 for Unauthorized Reception of Satellite Signals in Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a);

Unauthorized Interception of Electronic Communications in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a); Willful

Assembly or Modification of Devices or Equipment in Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4); and

violations of California common law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant purchased and used a Pirate

Access Device, consisting of a printed circuit board device called an “Unlooper,” which is designed

to permit viewing of DIRECTV’s television programming without authorization by or payment to

DIRECTV. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise defend the action. On December

16, 2004, the Clerk of this Court entered default as to Defendant Matthew Joseph. On April 12, 2005,

Plaintiff filed this Motion for Default Judgment.

III. STANDARDS

 Upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the

amount of damages, will be taken as true. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th

Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). In exercising its discretion to grant

default judgment, the court may consider the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the

plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the

sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)

whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72

(9th Cir. 1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Damages

 Plaintiff’s motion requests statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 for

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Previously, in the context of another

case brought by Plaintiff, this Court concluded that DIRECTV’s services are covered by both the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and the Federal Communications

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq. See DIRECTV v. Tom Thai, C 04-03471 JW, April 7, 2005

Case 5:04-cv-03400-JW Document 27 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Default Judgment at 5:10-11. However, because the damage to DIRECTV is caused

by the same underlying conduct, the Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiff to elect which of the two

statutes it is seeking relief under. 

During oral argument, Plaintiff elected to pursue damages exclusively under 18 U.S.C. §

2520(a) which allows recovery in a civil action for “any person whose wire, oral, or electronic

communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used” in violation of the Electronic

Communications Privacy Act. The Complaint alleges that Defendant used Pirate Access Devices to

decrypt and view Plaintiff’s satellite television transmissions, Defendant disclosed or intentionally

used, intercepted, endeavored to intercept, or procured other persons to intercept or endeavor to

intercept, Plaintiff’s satellite transmission of television programming, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2520(a). Construing these allegations as true for purposes of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment,

the Court finds that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a).

Therefore, the court awards Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 for Defendant’s

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a).

B. Attorneys’ Fees

 Plaintiff seeks an award of the attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action against

Defendant in the amount of $2830.00. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3), Plaintiff is entitled to

recover a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The Court has

reviewed Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in this action and finds both the hours spent and the rate of

compensation to be reasonable. Therefore, the court will award Plaintiff its full amount of attorneys’

fees associated with this action.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-03400-JW Document 27 Filed 05/24/05 Page 3 of 5
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

V. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff

is awarded damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 in statutory damages and $2830.00 in

attorneys’ fees for a total of $12,830.00. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 54,

FED. R. CIV. P. and is directed to file a Bill of costs in compliance with the Local Rules of this Court.

Dated: May 24, 2005 

04cv3400dj

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03400-JW Document 27 Filed 05/24/05 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan J. Kessel Akessel@buchalter.com

Kimberly Rene Colombo kkatz@buchalter.com

Suzanne M. Burke sburke@buchalter.com

Dated: May 24, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/jwchambers/ 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03400-JW Document 27 Filed 05/24/05 Page 5 of 5