~a-

facts, 7 32.) Galaxy was another corporation (not a defendant in
this case) that was allegedly engaged in the sale of pirate
descrambling equipment. The company was operated by Carlos Garcia
(also not a defendant in this case), another of the Garcia sons.
The 14 checks totaling $37,450 were written on the account of
Carlos Garcia and Guadalupe B. Hear. Apparently the basis for the
allegation that the checks were “from the proceeds of Galaxy
Electronics, [ne.” is that Carlos Garcia owned Galaxy.

In their responses to Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested
Facts, Juan and Maria Garcia deny that the $37,450 they received
from the personal checking account of their son Carlos was payment
for any type of participation in Galaxy Blectronics, Inc. They
State that the payments were “for a private family matter.”

Discussion

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Juan Garcia
and Maria Garcia is frivolous. The assertion that they became
“ghost employees” of World Wide Flectronies, Inc., or of Galaxy
Electronics, Inc., by virtue of the fact that they received some
checks from World Wide and some checks from their son Juan, and
falled to report the money as income on their tax returns, is a
total non sequitur, The statute applies to persons who intercept
or assist in the interception of unauthorized cable signals, and

plaintiff has not otfered a scintilla of evidence that Juan or


-3-
checks totaling $11,756 from World Wide Electronics, Inc. in the
years 2000 and 2001. (Plaintiff’s Statement of Uncontested Facts,
q@ 31.) Juan and Maria Garcia did not report this money on their
income tax returns. On this basis, plaintiff alleges that these
defendants were “ghost employees of World Wide Electronics, Inc.
and are thus jointly and severally liable for the gross revenue of
World Wide Electronics, Inc. in the amount of $124,880.”
(Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,
at 8.)

Attached to Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested Facts is a
copy of the Answers to Interrogatories filed by Juan Garcia and
Maria Garcia under penalty of perjury. In those answers (1, 2, 3,
and 14), the defendants deny that they were involved in any
business activity involving electronic equipment or cable boxes and
deny that they were involved in the activity alleged in plaintifl’s
amended complaint. In their responses to Plaintiff’s Statement of
Uncontested Facts, Juan and Maria Garcia state that the monics
received by Juan Garcia were unrelated to the business of World
Wide Electronics, Inc. and were a private matter between the
defendants and their son Richard Garcia.

Plaintiff also seeks judgment against the defendants Juan and
Maria Garcia in the separate amount of $37,450. This is the total
amount of checks the defendants received “from the proceeds of

Galaxy Electronics, Inc.” (Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested


-~5-
Maria Garcia did this, let alone evidence so clear that plaintiff
is entitled to judgment as a matler of law.
Conclusion
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the

defendants Juan Garcia and Maria Garcia is denied.

Date: March 2, 2004

ENTER: Ly

John Grady, United States District age



AMirute Onder Foren (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Qh
a Magutrate Judge John F. Grady lan Avsigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2339 DATE March 2, 2004
CASE Comcast of IL v. World Wide Electronics, et al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

MOTION: nature of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) o Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im) Answer brief to motion duc____.- Reply to answer brief due__
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at .
(5) a Status hearinglheld/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on __— set for at.
@) a Triallset for/re-set for] on al
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at _
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrecment/pursuant to}
DFRCP4(m) O General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a(l) LO FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) [Other docket cntry] Plaintiff’s motion for summary is
granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted against

World Wide Electronics, Inc. in the amount of $124,880. Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment against the defendants Juan Garcia and Maria Garcia []
is denied. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend to change the name of plaintiff [ ] is allowed.
This case is set for status on March 31, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

(iypoox (Kor further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]

No notices requited, advised in open court Document
Number

No notices required.
umber of notices,

Notices MAILED hy judge's staff, war 6-3 2008

Notified counse! by telephone.

* |

Ducketing to mail notices
Mail AO 450 (orm.
Copyto
courtroom
KAM deputy's
initials Dale/time received in
central Clerk's Office ling depaty wits

(Reserved for use by the Court)


02-2339.001 March 2, 2004

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

COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v. No. 02 C 2339
WORLD WIDE ELECTRONICS, INC., an
Illinois corporation and RICHARD
GARCIA, individually and MARIA
GARCIA, individually and JUAN
GARCIA, individually,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action brought pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(a) (1),
which prohibits anyone from intercepting, receiving, or assisting
in the intercepting or receiving of any cable television
communications unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable
operator. The plaintiff is Comcast of Illinois X, LLC, a major

cable operator. The second amended complaint alleges that various

defendants violated the statute by selling cable sub
“descrambling” equipment that enabled the subscribers to receive

cable programs they had not paid for.’

Cable companies provide their subscribers with legitimate descrambiing

S bscribers to “descramble” programs or serv for
which they pay. s are charged with selling “pirate” deseramb! ing
equipment, which achieves the same result without payment to the cable cperato



~-2-

The defendant Richard Garcia owned and operated the defendant
World Wide Electronics, Inc., which allegedly profited $124,880
from the sale of pirate equipment. World Wide is in default and is
not represented in the case. Plaintiff has reached a settlement
with the defendant Richard Garcia, and he has been dismissed from
the case by agreement.

What is now before the court is plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment in the amount of $124,880 against the defendants World
Wide Electronics, Inc., Juan Garcia and Maria Garcia, jointly and
severally, Juan and Maria Garcia are the parents of Richard

Garcia. The motion also requests a separate judgment in the amount

q

of $37,450 against the defendants Juan Garcia and Marja Garcia
jointly and severally.

We will grant the motion for summary judgment against World
Wide Flectronics, Inc. in the requested amount of $124,880 because
there is no opposition,

The situation is altogether different, however, as to the
defendants Juan and Maria Garcia. Although the complaint alleges
that they participated in the selling of the pirate equipment, no
such allegation is made in the motion for summary judgment or in
the plaintiff's statement of uncontested facts submitted pursuant
to the local rule. The sole basis asserted for the $124,880
judgment against Juan and Maria Garcia is that the defendant Juan

Garcia admitted in Answers to Interrogatories that he received