Opinion ID: 773661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural background and prior litigation between the parties

Text: 12 NSS commenced its action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in November of 1997. Eliadis, Inc. and its co-owners soon settled with NSS, agreeing to the entry of judgment against them for violating 47 U.S.C. § 605, which is part of the Communications Act, and paying $250 in nominal damages. NSS's claim against Time Warner proceeded. 13 In July of 1999, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of NSS, finding that Time Warner had violated § 605. A bench trial on the issue of damages was held several months later. The district court determined that Time Warner was liable for $4,500 in statutory damages. NSS further sought and was awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §605(e)(3)(B)(iii), totaling $26,389.65, in March of 2000. Time Warner appeals the rulings of the district court, raising three alternative arguments. 14 First, Time Warner contends that the district court erred by failing to give preclusive effect to a separate district court judgment rendered in July of 1998 that arose from a substantially identical claim by NSS against Time Warner. NSS learned that a commercial establishment in Akron, Ohio called Lyndstalder, Inc., d/b/a Coach's Corner, had shown a boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Bobby Czyz that Coach's Corner obtained via residential-cable service from Time Warner in March of 1996. As in the case before us, Time Warner had obtained the exclusive right from the producer to distribute the match to residential customers in Ohio, while NSS received the exclusive license to sell the same program to Ohio's commercial establishments. 15 NSS commenced an action against Coach's Corner and its owner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in August of 1997. When NSS learned of Time Warner's role in providing the broadcast to Coach's Corner, it added Time Warner as a defendant. In that suit, National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Lyndstalder, Inc. d/b/a/ Coach's Corner, et al., No. 5:97 CV 2039 (N.D. Ohio 1998), NSS alleged that both Coach's Corner and Time Warner had violated 47 U.S.C. §605. Coach's Corner settled with NSS. Time Warner then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that NSS had failed to establish either a contractual or a statutory claim against it. 16 The district court held a hearing on Time Warner's motion for summary judgment in July of 1998. It issued a bench ruling at that hearing, granting Time Warner's motion for summary judgment on the basis that NSS failed to state a claim pursuant to the terms of the contracts [for distribution] at issue in this case as well as 47 U.S.C. § 605. NSS did not appeal. Time Warner argues that the Coach's Corner decision precludes NSS from raising the identical § 605 claim in the present case. 17 Second, even if we conclude that NSS is not bound by the Coach's Corner decision, Time Warner argues that NSS does not qualify as a person aggrieved under § 605(d)(6). It therefore contends that NSS lacks the standing to sue Time Warner for an alleged violation of § 605. 18 Finally, as its last line of defense, Time Warner argues that NSS's cause of action under §605 fails because Time Warner did not intercept a communication within the meaning of the Communications Act. It maintains that the clear purpose of the Act is to prohibit and punish acts of communications piracy, which is far removed from what Time Warner says occurred in the present case. Although Time Warner concedes that NSS may have a claim against it based on state-law breach of contract, it argues that NSS has pursued the wrong cause of action under § 605.