dismissed without prejudice. While the Court recognizes the legitimacy of those concerns,
DirecTV’s fears may not be well-founded. Any action that is refiled (provided that it is refiled
relatively quickly) may relate back to the date of the original filing for statute of limitations
purposes. Even if for some reason it does not, DirecTV would be free to argue that the statute of
limitations should be equitably tolled. Additionally, when DirecTV filed these lawsuits, it was
aware (or at least it should have been aware) that its strategy of joining unrelated defendants in
the same lawsuit carried with it a risk that the suits would be dismissed without prejudice for
improper joinder under Rule 21. Finally, it is unclear what “severance” means in the context of
DirecTV’s request: will the severed cases proceed under the original case number? Wil] DirecTV
pay filing fees in each of the “severed” cases? Parties must bear the risks of their own litigation

choices.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, Defendant’s Motion is granted. The complaint is
dismissed without prejudice against all of the Defendants except for the first-named Defendant.

Enter:

David H. Coar
United States District Judge

Dated: November 10, 2003



_ Minute Oni Form (09°97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

of Assigned Judge
r Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

David H. Coar

CASE NUMBER 03 C 3491 DATE 11/10/2003
CASE Directv, Inc. vs. Serio, et al.
TITLE
(Un the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e-g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.

DOCKET ENTRY:

No notices required.

Mail AO 450 form.

Notices mailed by judge’s stat.
Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

javile

(1) 0 Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) a] Answer brief to motion due Reply to answer brief due
(4) im Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at
(5) O Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(6) Oo Pretrial conferencefheld/continued to] (set for/re-set for) on setfor_ at
(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for]on__ at
(8) a) [BenclyJury tial] [Hearing] held/continued to___—__at
(9) QO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) CO Local Rule 41.1. OO FRCP41(a)(1) [2 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) a (Other docket entry] For the reasons given in the attached memorandum opinion, the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice against all Defendants except for the first-named Defendant, Joe Serio.
p ouubll ba,
(11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. ]
| No notices required, advised in open court, Document
Number

number of norices

NOV 127003

date docketed

'

ID.

docketing deputy initials

date mailed nosice

courtroom
deputy's

initials +

THheame neers

central Clerk's. 6 fice

mailing deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
DIRECTY, Inc., )
) No. 03 C 3491
Plaintiff, )
) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
v. )
)
JOE SERIO, et al. ) gu
} Nov 1 2 2003
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc., has sued several Defendants for violations of,
among other statutes, provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. The Court issued
Plaintiff a rule to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for improper joinder,
raising the same issue that Defendant Prassel raised in his motion. Plaintiff submitted its brief in
answer to the rule to show cause and the issue is now ripe for decision.

Defendants may be joined in the same action if (1) “there is asserted against them jointly,
severally or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;” and (2) “if any questions of law
or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Misjoinder occurs
when a plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these two requirements. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 21, the court may dismiss a misjoined party from an action “on such terms as are just.”

The Plaintiffs Complaint readily meets the second requirement of Rule 20. It is beyond

dispute that there will be questions of law that are common to all the defendants in this lawsuit.


It is equally clear, though, that Plaintiff's Complaint cannot meet the first requirement of the
Rule. Each Defendant is alleged to have obtained devices for intercepting DirecTV’s satellite
signal and to have intercepted the signal without participating in the DirecTV subscriber
network. DirecTV also alleges that they each received their devices from the same distribution
center. It is there, however, that the similarities end. None of the Defendants are alleged to have
acted in concert with any of the others, nor are any of them even alleged to have known one
another before they were all named in the same lawsuit. The facts relating to the transaction of
one Defendant are distinct from the facts relating to the transaction of each of the other
Defendants. Under these circumstances, it is possible and even likely that each Defendant will
present separate and unique defenses. The claims against the Defendants arise out of different,
albeit similar, facts. The only connection between them is that they each allegedly violated
provisions of federal law relating to the piracy of cable television.

DirecTV asserts that under the permissive joinder rules in their broadest form, the
Defendants are properly joined because their behavior amounts to a series of transactions that are
logically related to one another. The transactions are logically related to one another in the same
way that purchases of milk from the grocery store are logically related to one another: each
transaction involves a transaction in a similar good for a similar purpose. Beyond that, the
similarities end. DirecTV’s position broadens the joinder rule too far. The multiple defendants
in the actions that DirecTV filed in this Court are clearly misjoined.

DirecTV urges that the Court should sever the misjoined Defendants rather than
dismissing them without prejudice to DirecTV’s ability to refile separate suits against them.

DirecTV’s fear is that it could suffer adverse statute of limitations consequences if the suits are