Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00718/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00718-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Comcast of California III, Inc.
Plaintiff
Jacques Tardif
Defendant
Stephane Tardif
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANE TARDIF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-0718 EMC

ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 15, 17)

Plaintiff Comcast of California III, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Stephane Tardif and

Jacques Tardif for (1) violation of the Cable Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 553; (2) unjust

enrichment; (3) imposition of a constructive trust; and (4) violation of California Penal Code § 593d. 

After receiving no response to the complaint and summons, Comcast filed a motion for default

judgment. Counsel for Comcast was instructed that entry of default must first be sought before a

default judgment. Accordingly, Comcast asked for entry of default, which the Clerk of the Court

issued on July 22, 2005. See Docket No. 22. After default was entered, the Court considered

Comcast’s motion for default judgment and, on August 1, 2005, ordered additional briefing and

evidence in support of the motion. See Docket No. 23. On August 30, 2005, Comcast filed a

response to the Court’s order. See Docket Nos. 24-26. 

Having reviewed Comcast’s response, the Court hereby orders Comcast to provide briefing

on two additional matters.

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-00718-CRB Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

1. Claim Under the California Penal Code

In its response, Comcast asserted that it was entitled to damages under California Penal Code

§ 593e. However, in its complaint, Comcast did not allege a violation under § 593e; rather, it

claimed a violation of § 593d. Thus, Defendants only had notice of a violation of § 593d, not §

593e. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (providing that “[a] judgment by default shall not be different in

kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Comcast has before it two options: Either Comcast must be

held to a request for a default judgment for a violation of § 593d, or Comcast may file an amended

complaint so as to assert a § 593e claim instead of a § 593d claim (in addition to its claim under the

Cable Communications Act) and then serve the amended complaint on Defendants. If Defendants

fail to respond to the amended complaint, then Comcast may seek entry of default based on the

amended complaint and then a default judgment.

The Court therefore orders Comcast to inform the Court which of the two options it wishes to

pursue. If the former, then Comcast should also provide briefing explaining why it is entitled to

default judgment on the § 593d claim based on the Eitel factors and what damages should be

awarded for the violation of § 593d. Comcast should also provide any evidence necessary to support

its damages claim under § 593d.

2. Duplicative Damages

It appears that, regardless of whether Comcast will assert a violation under § 593d or § 593e,

Comcast intends to argue that it is entitled to a monetary award under both the Cable

Communications Act and the California Penal Code. However, Comcast has not cited any authority

showing that it is entitled to damages under both statutes when the wrongful conduct by Defendants

underlying each statute is the same.

The Court therefore orders Comcast to brief: (1) whether it is entitled to damages under both

statutes; and (2) if not, whether the Court has discretion in selecting under which statute damages

should be awarded. In addition, if the Court has discretion in selecting the remedy, what factors

should inform the Court’s decision?

Case 3:05-cv-00718-CRB Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

Comcast should file all of the pleadings, briefing, and/or evidence required in items (1) and

(2) above within thirty days of the filing date of this order.

In addition, Comcast shall serve a copy of this order on all Defendants within a week of the

filing date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2005

_________________________

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00718-CRB Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 3