Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03445/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DIRECTV, Inc.
Plaintiff
Grant Tsuji
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GRANT TSUJI,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-3445 SC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. ("Plaintiff") offers subscriptionbased television programming via a direct broadcast satellite

system. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Grant

Tsuji ("Defendant") for unauthorized reception of Plaintiff's

satellite signal. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four counts based

on 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4),

and state tort law. Defendant has not filed any sort of

responsive pleading nor responded in any other way to the

complaint. The Court's Clerk entered default on December 21,

2004. Plaintiff now moves for entry of default judgment. Because

this Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint lacking in several critical

areas, the Motion is DENIED.

"The general rule of law is that upon default the factual

allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 7
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

1

 This standard comports Judge Ware's Order Regarding Limited

Assignment to Determine Issues Regarding Joinder of Defendants and

Showing Needed [sic] to Establish a Prima Facie Case Under

Statutory Claims. In the Matter of DIRECTV, Inc. Cases Pending in

the Northern District of California, 02-5912 JW, July 26, 2004. 

Judge Ware wrote that a court "has the discretion to consider

DIRECTV to have met its burden of proof by the admissions of

liability which accompany entry of default against each defendant

... the court also has power to require additional proof of any

fact alleged in the complaint as the basis for liability." Id. at

11 (internal citations omitted).

2

of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Group,

559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Therefore, for purposes of

this Motion, the Court accepts as true the facts as portrayed in

the Complaint.

"However, entry of default does not automatically entitle the

non-defaulting party to entry of a default judgment regardless of

the fact that the effect of entry of a default is to deem

allegations admitted." In re Villegas, 132 B.R. 742, 746 (9th

Cir. 1991). Rather, "the decision to enter a default judgment is

discretionary." Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862

F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Among the factors which a trial

court is to consider when exercising its discretion as to entry of

a default judgment are "the merits of plaintiff's substantive

claim" and "the sufficiency of the complaint." Eitel v. McCool,

782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, the Court does not

doubt the merits of DIRECTV's substantive claim. Therefore, entry

of default judgment in the matter at hand is appropriate only if

the complaint is sufficient.1

This Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint itself is not

sufficient to support a grant of default judgment. In sum,

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 7
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

 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), among other prohibitions, states, "No

person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in

receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use

such communication (or any information therein contained) for his

own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto." 

18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) states that "any person whose wire, oral, or

electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or

intentionally used in violation of [18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.] may

in a civil action recover from the person or entity ... engaged in

that violation." 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) prohibits the manufacture,

assembly, modification, import, export, sale and distribution of

devices designed to steal satellite programming signals.

3

Plaintiff has alleged mere possession of a Pirate Access Device

("Device") by Defendant, but none of the statutes put forth create

liability for mere possession.2 Therefore, this Court declines to

grant default judgment. 

More specifically, the foundation of Plaintiff's claims is

that Defendant purchased a Pirate Access Device that enables theft

of Plaintiff's satellite signal. The Complaint alleges that

Defendant purchased a Device from a distributor in Florida,

according to business records seized from the distributor. 

Complaint at 2. The Complaint states, "On or about August 25,

2001, Defendant purchased a Pirate Access Device ... The device

was shipped to Defendant at Defendant's former address in Alameda,

California." Id. at 4.

Other than the August 25 purchase, the Complaint contains

only a series of general allegations that mimic the language of

the statutes on which the Complaint is based. For example, the

Complaint states, "Defendant has received and/or assisted others

in receiving DIRECTV's satellite transmissions." Id. Or, the

Complaint states, "Upon information and belief, Defendant

knowingly manufactured, assembled, sold, distributed, or modified

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 7
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

an electronic, mechanical or other device ... used primarily in

the assistance of the unauthorized decryption of satellite

programming." Id. at 6. However, the Court finds that such

statements are nothing more than a recantation of the elements of

the statutes at issue. Pursuant to its discretion under Rule 55

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court holds that

given the instant facts, allegations that merely repeat verbatim

the elements of a statute, without any factual basis, are

insufficient to support a grant of default judgment.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted evidence

regarding the lack of legitimate uses for the Device. Declaration

of Jaime Sichler at 2. However, such evidence says nothing about

whether or not Defendant engaged in activities beyond mere

possession of the Device. 

Case law supports a denial of default judgment. For example,

in looking at § 605(a), in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hyatt, a district

court in Michigan held that "it is not enough for a plaintiff

merely to show that a defendant possessed equipment capable of

intercepting a communication in order to show that the defendant

actually received or intercepted the plaintiff's communication." 

302 F. Supp. 2d 797, 803 (W.D. Mich. 2004). Similarly, though a

different legal standard than that applicable here, when

confronted with a summary judgment motion by a defendant who

claims mere possession, a plaintiff is required to provide at

least circumstantial evidence of the interception. DIRECTV, Inc.

v. Hendrix, No. 02-6493, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26284, at *9-10

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2003). With regards to 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a)

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 7
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 5

the Eleventh Circuit has held, "Possession of a pirate access

device alone, although a criminal offense, creates nothing more

than conjectural or hypothetical harm to DTV ... liability created

by section 2520(a) is confined to illegal interceptions,

disclosures, and uses of electronic communications." DIRECTV v.

Treworgy, 373 F.3d 1124, 1127 (11th Cir 2004). Finally, with

regards to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), which prohibits the manufacture,

assembly, modification, import, export, sale and distribution of

devices designed to steal satellite programming signals, "[c]ourts

have held that § 605(e)(4) targets upstream manufacturers and

distributors, not ultimate consumers of pirating devices, and the

mere purchase and use of Pirate Access Devices does not constitute

a violation of the statute." DIRECTV, Inc. v. Carpenter, No. 03-

5247, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5124, at *17 (N.D. Cal. March 11,

2005). Based on this case law, the Court declines to grant

default judgment on the three causes of action brought pursuant to

federal statutes.

In the Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff puts forth a statelaw conversion claim, alleging, "By possessing and using Pirate

Access Devices, Defendant has unlawfully converted to his own use

and benefit property belonging to DIRECTV." Complaint at 6. 

However, mere possession alone of a Device cannot be the basis of

a conversion claim because the Device in question was never the

property of Plaintiff. Facts alleging use by the Defendant might

support a conversion claim, but as above, the Court finds

Plaintiff's alleged facts with respect to usage to be

insufficient.

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 7
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

 The Court merely gives these as examples of what might

constitute circumstantial evidence of actions going beyond mere

possession. The Court is not suggesting that such evidence

actually exists with regards to the Defendant.

6

Notwithstanding this denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Default

Judgment, this Court emphasizes that theft of a television signal

is no less serious than theft of any tangible chattel. Through

the above statutes, Congress has established a framework for

pursuing claims based on such thefts. Therefore, although this

Court has denied Plaintiff's Motion, the Court will allow

Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended

complaint. Should Plaintiff choose to submit an amended

Complaint, the Court encourages Plaintiff to offer circumstantial

evidence of actions by Defendant going beyond mere possession. 

The Court recognizes that due to the unresponsiveness of

Defendant, Plaintiff is unable to conduct discovery. However,

Plaintiff is free to submit circumstantial evidence that does not

depend on an opposing party's cooperation, such as evidence of

multiple purchases or declarations detailing observations of

satellite dishes outside of the location at which process was

served on Defendant.3 

In sum, even if this Court takes as true every fact in

Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion Brief, the Complaint is

insufficient to support an entry of default judgment. Therefore,

Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is hereby DENIED. As

instructed above, Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 6 of 7
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 7

Order to submit an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff choose not

to submit an amended complaint, the matter will be dismissed with

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18 , 2005

 /s/ Samuel Conti 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 7 of 7