Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03423/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DIRECTV, Inc.
Plaintiff
Cesar Gonzalez
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, Inc.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

CESAR GONZALEZ,

Defendant(s).

NO. C 04-03423 FMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff DIRECTV has requested that the Court enter a default judgment against

defendant, Cesar Gonzales, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and 47 U.S.C. section 605. 

The Court finds the criminal case of United States v. Lande, 968 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1992)

instructive in this matter, and awards the plaintiff damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2520.

It is undisputed that defendant Gonzalez has failed to oppose the plaintiff’s properly

served complaint alleging violations of federal statute and state law, specifically the

unauthorized interception of electronic communications. A clerk’s default was entered against

the defendant on December 22, 2004. The default entry deems the allegations of the

complaint, pertaining to liability, admitted. See TeleVideo System, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Under 18 U.S.C. section 2520(c)(2), the Court assesses damages to be the greater of

the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff or the statutory damages assessed for each

violation.

Although DIRECTV has attempted to estimate its actual damages, such estimates are

Case 3:04-cv-03423-FMS Document 26 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

speculative because the plaintiff cannot determine how many times its communications were

intercepted. Instead, the Court awards statutory damages of $10,000. This judgment is

justified given the 1,425 days the defendants possessed the pirating devices that enabled them

to intercept the plaintiffs communications. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment at 7. 

Even though plaintiff has not affirmatively proved that the defendants intercepted DIRECTV’s

programming on each of those days, $10,000 is the presumed damages award for section 2520

violations, if damages are awarded at all. See Dorris v. Absher, 179 F.3d 420, 430 (6th Cir.

1999); Directv, Inc. v. Decroce, 332 F. Supp. 2d. 715, 720 (D. N.J. 2004) (asserting that if

damages are awarded under section 2520, the Court cannot award less than $10,000); but see

Directv, Inc. v. Carpenter, U.S. Dist LEXIS 5124 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (“[T]his Court may, in its

discretion, refuse to award any damages under § 2520(c)(2), even if there has been a

violation...”)..

The Court does not award damages for each pirating device owned by the defendant. 

Pursuant to section 2520, the violation appropriate for compensation is the interception of the

programming signal, not the possession of a device that allows for the interception. There is

no evidence as to how much, if at all, an unlooper and a reader/writer together increase the

amount of interception that might occur. Thus, the statutory amount of $10,000. is awarded to

the plaintiff. Having granted this amount, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach any other

claim for duplicative statutory remedies.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-03423-FMS Document 26 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

The Court also grants the plaintiffs $1,500.00 in attorneys fees. This amount appears

sufficient, given the fact that much of the work being done in these cases is repetitive and has

taken on a “boilerplate” status. In addition, DIRECTV 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 the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: ____________2005

FERN M. SMITH

United States District Judge

May 13, /s/

Case 3:04-cv-03423-FMS Document 26 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 3