Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50375416/Nebraska-USDC-Damages-for-Teddybear-Wiretapping
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 01:48:26
Document Index: 729706247

Matched Legal Cases: ['§636', '§ 2510', '§ 2511', '§ 86', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§1367']

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAWILLIAM DUANE LEWTON,personally, and as father and next friendof ELLENNA M. LEWTON, a minorchild; ADRIANNE STANG, JENNIFER HOLTBERG, ROB FORMANEK, RITAWATSON and TAMMY JONES,Plaintiffs,v.DIANNA DIVINGNZZO, SAM M.DIVINGNZZO, WILLIAM BIANCO,CHRISTOPHER PERRONE, andBIANCO PERRONE & STROH, LLC,Defendants.8:09-cv-00002-FG3MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the magistrate judge by consent of the parties,
28 U.S.C. §636(c), on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 130, 133 and 135), discoverymotions (Docs. 112 and 156) and plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Doc. 115). The court hasconsidered the parties' legal arguments, together with over 6,000 pages of their evidentiarysubmissions.For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that defendants Dianna Divingnzzo, SamM. Divingnzzo and William Bianco violated the provisions of Title III of the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Electronic Communications PrivacyAct of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (the "Wiretap Act" or "Title III"). Dianna Divingnzzoand Sam M. Divingnzzo are liable to the plaintiffs for statutory damages on the Wiretap Act
-2-claims. The court declines to assess damages against William Bianco on the Wiretap Actclaims.Finally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's statelaw claims.
The events giving rise to the plaintiffs' claims arose in conjunction with a dispute betweenWilliam Duane ("Duke") Lewton and his ex-wife, Dianna Divingnzzo, over the custody of their minor child, Ellenna Divingnzzo-Lewton. Shortly after the state court granted Duke the rightto have unsupervised visits with Ellenna, Dianna inserted a recording device inside Ellenna'steddy bear and secretly intercepted communications between or among Ellenna and the plaintiffs,and/or between or among the plaintiffs themselves without Ellenna's participation. Therecordings were made without the plaintiffs' knowledge or consent and occurred over a periodof several months.In May 2008, Dianna and her father, Sam Divingnzzo, presented the recordings toDianna's attorney in a digital format, using CD-ROM data storage discs, for use as evidence inthe custody dispute. Dianna's attorney had the recordings copied and transcribed, and suppliedcopies of the CDs and transcripts to Lewton's attorney and others involved in the state court case.The Sarpy County District Court held that the recordings were illegally obtained and wereinadmissible. This federal lawsuit followed.
-3-In the Amended Complaint, (Doc. 63), plaintiffs assert claims under the Federal WiretapAct,
18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, together with state law claims for invasion of privacy,conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy, and violations of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-2,103.All defendants deny liability. Defendants Bianco, Perrone and Bianco, Perrone & Stroh,LLC affirmatively allege they are immune from liability because they had a privilege to discloseor use the recordings in the context of their legal representation of Dianna Divingnzzo. DiannaDivingnzzo and her father, Sam Divingnzzo, affirmatively allege that they are immune fromliability based on Dianna's legal responsibility to protect Ellenna.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs'Federal Wiretap Act claims. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The courtmay exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
Plaintiff, William Duane ("Duke") Lewton, and defendant, Dianna Divingnzzo, weremarried in 2001 and are the parents of Ellenna Divingnzzo-Lewton, born in September 2003.Duke and Dianna separated in December 2003. On May 12, 2004, the Sarpy County DistrictCourt entered a decree dissolving the marriage and awarding Dianna Divingnzzo the sole care,custody and control of the infant Ellenna, subject to Duke's rights of reasonable and liberalvisitation.
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Nebraska USDC, Damages for Teddybear Wiretapping 8:09-cv-00002-FG3 Doc # 166Filed: 02/18/11 Page 1 of 27 - Page ID # 7131IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA WILLIAM DUANE LEWTON, personally, and as father and next friend…
8:09-cv-00002-FG3 Doc # 166Filed: 02/18/11 Page 1 of 27 - Page ID # 7131IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA WILLIAM DUANE LEWTON, personally, and as father and next friend of ELLENNA M. LEWTON, a minor child; ADRIANNE STANG, JENNIFER HOLTBERG, ROB FORMANEK, RITA WATSON and TAMMY JONES, Plaintiffs, v. DIANNA DIVINGNZZO, SAM M. DIVINGNZZO, WILLIAM BIANCO, CHRISTOPHER PERRONE, and BIANCO PERRONE & STROH, LLC, Defendants. 8:09-cv-00002-FG3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDERThis (Less)
Download or PrintAdd To Collection674Reads0Readcasts0Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published byProfessor NoBullFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Business/Law > Court FilingsRating:Upload Date:03/09/2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50375416/Nebraska-USDC-Damages-for-Teddybear-Wiretapping03/09/2011pdftextoriginal
Recommended1 p.Flier for Santa Rosa County Democratic Party LuauProfessor NoBull303 Reads
More From This User103 p.DC Circuit Court Order, Health Care Mandate ConstitutionalProfessor NoBull75 Reads33 p.4th Circuit Court Order, No Standing in Health Care Lawsuit, Cuccin...Professor NoBull142 Reads140 p.4th Circuit Court Order, No Standing in Health Care Lawsuit, Libert...Professor NoBull118 Reads304 p.11th Circuit Court Order, Health Care Mandate UnconstitutionalProfessor NoBull134 Reads45 p.Court Docket, Liberty Counsel v. SRCSD, Update #2Professor NoBull483 Reads5 p.Liberty Counsel v. SRCSD, Joint Motion, Review of Proposed Timetabl...Professor NoBull127 Reads2 p.ACLU v. SRCSD, Notice of FilingProfessor NoBull136 Reads17 p.ACLU v. SRCSD, Notice of Filing, First Amended Consent DecreeProfessor NoBull854 Reads64 p.6th Circuit Court Order, Health Care Law ConstitutionalProfessor NoBull169 Reads29 p.Liberty Counsel v. SRCSD, Order on Motions to DismissProfessor NoBull242 Reads20 p.Florida Court Order, Staying Health Care DecisionProfessor NoBull210 Reads26 p.WUWF, 2010 Audited Financial StatementsProfessor NoBull333 Reads23 p.UP Law Review, Commerce Clause Challenges to Health Care ReformProfessor NoBull958 Reads78 p.Florida Court Order, Health Care Law UnconstitutionalProfessor NoBull333 Reads42 p.Virginia Court Order, Health Care Provision UnconstitutionalProfessor NoBull30 Reads4 p.USA, Motion for Summary Judgment, Table of ExhibitsProfessor NoBull560 Reads18 p.USA, Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of FactsProfessor NoBull436 Reads65 p.USA, Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum in SupportProfessor NoBull510 Reads3 p.USA, Motion for Summary JudgmentProfessor NoBull125 Reads13 p.USA, Answer to ComplaintProfessor NoBull152 Reads14 p.Plaintiffs, Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Material FactsProfessor NoBull261 Reads64 p.Plaintiffs, Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum of LawProfessor NoBull508 Reads5 p.Plaintiffs, Motion for Summary JudgmentProfessor NoBull218 Reads5 p.Ellingwood, Motion for Intervention in the Herein CaseProfessor NoBull22 Reads