U.S.C. § 2511 that Congress did not intend the interpretation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2520
proposed by DIRECTV. DIRECTV has in fact filed a claim based upon 18 U.S.C.
§ 2511 against Horn for intercepting DIRECTV signals. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511,
which is entitled “§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited” an individual violates the act if he “intentionally
intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or
endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication . . . [or]
intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor
to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral
communication ....” 18 U.S.C. § 2511. This would go hand in hand with§ 2520's
authorization of a civil action for communications that are “intercepted, disclosed,
or intentionally used in violation of this chapter.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 2520. We also
note that DIRECTV is already seeking to recover from Horn under 18 U.S.C. § 2511

in,Count II of.its complaint. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss Count III.

It Count V (Conversion)
Horn also moves to dismiss the claim for conversion (Count V). Horn argues

that the conversion claim is based upon his alleged use of satellite signals and that
since such signals are not a tangible object the conversion claim cannot stand. Horn
cites to Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Construction Mgmt Servs., Inc, which states that
“[g]enerally, a conversion action lies only for ‘personal property which is tangible,

4


interstate or foreign commerce,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C, § 2512. While 18 U.S.C. § 2512 is criminal in nature, 18 U.S.C. § 2520
provides the following thus allowing for a civil claim:

(a) In general.--Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person
whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or
intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover
from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that
violation such relief as may be appropriate. ,

18 U.S.C. § 2520. Horn argues that 18 U.S.C. § 2520 does notprovide for a private

civil cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2512.

We agree with the reasoning in regards to this precise issue set out in
DIRECTY, Inc. v. Hinton, 2004 WL 856555 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Darrah), DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Frey, 2004 WL 813539 (N.D. Ill. 2004)(J. Zagel), and DIRECTY, Inc. v
Castillo, 2004 WL 783066 (N.D. Ill. 2004)(J. St. Eve). DIRECTV argues that §
2520 creates a civil cause of action for all violations of the chapter, focusing on the
word “chapter” in § 2520. However, it is clear from the plain language of § 2520
that the scope of the civil action is more limited than a violation of the entire
chapter. It specifically states that § 2520 is limited to a communication that is
“intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2520. Congress expressly created a private cause of action in § 2520 and it is not
appropriate, absent more of a compelling explanation to infer a broader cause of

action than is stated. Hinton, 2004 WL 856555 at *3. It is also clear from 18


or at least represented by or connected with something tangible.’” 2001 WL
1159203, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2001)(quoting Jn re Thebus, 483 N.E.2d 1258, 1260 (Ill.
1985)).

To state a conversion claim in Illinois a plaintiff must allege that “(1) it has a
right to the property at issue; (2) it has an absolute and unconditional right to the
immediate possession of that property; (3) it made a demand on the defendant for
possession of the property; and (4) the defendant wrongfully and without
authorization assumed control, dominion, or ownership over the property.” Castillo,
2004 WL 783066 at *2 (citing Cirrincione v. Johnson, 703 N.E.2d 67, 70 (III.1998)).
The Supreme Court of Illinois has defined conversion as “any unauthorized act,
which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time” and has
stated that the “essence of conversion is the wrongful deprivation of one who has a
right to the immediate possession of the object unlawfully held."Jn re Thebus, 483
N.E.2d at 1260. The Supreme Court of Illinois also has stated that traditionally
conversion is defined as "an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a
chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the

actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel." Id.

We need not decide whether the intangible nature of satellite signals makes
conversion an improper claim in this action because DIRECTV has not shown that it
was in any way denied the use of or control over the signals. The satellite signals

are broadcast into the open air and there are no allegations that Horn exercised such


Minute Order Form (06/97)
>

United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois

Name of Assigned Judy - i Sitting Ji Hf Othe
var Magistrate Judge | __ Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Avigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 7803 DATE 5/6/2004
CASE Directv vs. Michael Horn
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
@ ao Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
2 a Brief in support of motion due
3) oO Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due, :
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(©) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) ja} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) UO Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) =o [Other docket entry) After further review and for the reasons stated on the attached memorandum
opinion, the Court hereby grants defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts III and V. Enter Memorandum
Opinion.
(11) For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff. M, AY 0 7
Notified counsel by telephone, A
a | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. y tials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
courtroom Seed
MW deputy's
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office ralling deputy initials



dominion and control over the signals as to deprive DIRECTV, the rightful owner of
the signals, the use of them. Hinton, 2004 WL 856555 at *4 (dismissing conversion
claim); Frey, 2004 WL 813539 at *4 (dismissing conversion claim); Castillo, 2004
WL 783066 at *2 (dismissing conversion claim). DIRECTV has not alleged that
any of the signals sent to its paying customers were disrupted as a result of Horn’s
interception or that DIRECTV was somehow unable to enjoy the benefit of those

signals sent out. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss the conversion claim

(Count V) against Horn.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we grant the motion to dismiss Count II and

grant the motion to dismiss Count V.

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan j ; q

United States District Court Judge

Dated: May 6, 2004



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DIRECTV, INC., )
Plaintiff,
v. } No. 03 C 7803
MICHAEL HORN, }
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

This matter is before the court on Defendant Michael Horn’s (“Horn”) motion
to dismiss Counts III and V. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion to

dismiss Count III and grant the motion to dismiss Count V.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) has brought this suit against Horn
alleging that he purchased and used pirating devices designed to intercept
DIRECTV’s satellite transmissions. DIRECTV’s complaint contains five counts.
Horn is seeking to dismiss Count III which is a claim alleging a violation of18

U.S.C. § 2512. Horn is also seeking to dismiss Count V which is a conversion



claim.

DISCUSSION
1 Count Iii (18 U.S.C. § 2512)

DIRECTV states a claim in Count III of its complaint alleging a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2512 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which states as
follows:

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who
intentionally—

(a) sends through the mail, or sends or carries in interstate or foreign
commerce, any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having
treason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for
the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic
communications;

(b) manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or
other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device
renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of
wire, oral, or electronic communications, and that such device or any
component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce; or

(c) places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication or
‘disseminates by electronic means any advertisement of--

(i) any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing the content of the
advertisement and knowing or having reason to know that the design of such
device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications; or

(ii) any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where such
advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of the
surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications,

. knowing the content of the advertisement and knowing or having reason to
know that such advertisement will be sent through the mail or transported in

2