Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03445/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03445-1/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 1

Plaintiff has not renewed his claim under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 605(e)(4).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GRANT TSUJI,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-3445 SC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

RENEWED 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 Amended Complaint alleges three

counts based on 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), and state

tort law.1 

Defendant has not filed any sort of responsive pleading nor

responded in any other way to the Complaints. The Court's Clerk

entered default on December 21, 2004. The Court denied

Plaintiff's first motion for default judgment on May 18, 2005,

finding that though Plaintiff had presented evidence that

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Defendant possessed an illegal pirating device, Plaintiff had not

offered evidence that Defendant had illegally intercepted

Plaintiff's transmissions. The Court held that Defendant's mere

possession of such a device was insufficient to support a grant of

default judgment. The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to

file an amended complaint, directing Plaintiff to present at least

circumstantial evidence of use by Defendant of the pirating device

to intercept Plaintiff's transmissions. Plaintiff timely filed an

amended complaint ("Amended Complaint"), and now moves again for

entry of default judgment. Because this Court finds that

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to offer sufficient evidence,

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

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

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 6
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 This standard comports with 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).

3

 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

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.2

This Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint itself is

not sufficient to support a grant of default judgment. In sum,

Plaintiff again has alleged mere possession of a Pirate Access

Device ("Device") by Defendant, but none of the statutes on which

Plaintiff's claims are based create liability for mere

possession.3 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

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 6
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

of Plaintiff's satellite signal. The Amended Complaint alleges

that Defendant purchased a Device from a distributor in Florida,

according to business records seized from the distributor. 

Amended Complaint at 2-3, 4. The Amended 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 Amended Complaint,

like the first Complaint, contains only a series of general

allegations that mimic the language of the statutes on which the

Complaint is based. For example, the Amended Complaint states,

"Defendant has received and/or assisted others in receiving

DIRECTV's satellite transmissions." Id. at 5. Or, the Amended

Complaint states, "By using Pirate Access Devices to decrypt and

view DIRECTV's satellite transmissions, Defendant...intercepted

[or] endeavored to intercept...DIRECTV's satellite transmission." 

Id. at 5-6. However, the Court finds that such statements are

nothing more than a recantation of the elements of the statutes

under which the claims arise. 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 the Plaintiff has submitted evidence

that the Device is "primarily designed...to be used in order to

gain unauthorized access to DIRECTV satellite programming." 

Declaration of Kent Mader at 11. The Court further notes that

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that "[p]urchase and use of [the

Device] is a clear indication of the customers' [sic] eagerness to

continue illegal access...[and] indicates that the person

purchasing it already possessed one or more illegally modified

DIRECTV access cards." Id. at 12. However, while the Court finds

that there is evidence of possession, an inference that Defendant

used the Device for its alleged primary purpose is conjecture

unsupported by any additional evidence. 

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

governed by 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 actual interception. DIRECTV,

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

10 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2003). 

As for the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), the Eleventh

Circuit has held that "[p]ossession 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

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 5 of 6
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 6

F.3d 1124, 1127 (11th Cir 2004). 

In the Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff puts forth a statelaw conversion claim, alleging that "[b]y possessing and using

Pirate Access Devices, Defendant has unlawfully converted to his

own use and benefit property belonging to DIRECTV." Amended

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 indicating 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.

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

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion Brief, the

Amended Complaint is insufficient to support an entry of default

judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Default

Judgment is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03445-SC Document 30 Filed 09/14/05 Page 6 of 6