![Text Box: NEW! 1/11/05 Court rejects DirecTV’s Request to Dismiss Malicious Prosecution Suit Against It, based on Affidavits of Former DirecTV Investigators Fisher and Bautista.
“Ms. Campagne has submitted evidence that could persuade a jury that DIRECTV brought claims against Ms. Campagne for the sole purpose of obtaining a monetary settlement with little or no regard to whether Ms. Campagne actually engaged in the alleged conduct. The testimony of two former DIRECTV investigators [Fisher and Bautista] is that no real investigation ever occurred, lawsuits were threatened and initiated regardless of their merit, and financial gain, not facts, dictated DIRECTV’s decisions to file suit. Based on the facts before it, the Court finds that reasonable minds could differ as to whether DIRECTV acted with malice and without probable cause based on the manner in which DIRECTV pursued lawsuits and monetary settlements against alleged signal thieves, such as Ms. Campagne.”](Court%20Rulings_files/image001.gif)
What are you looking for? Significant Court Rulings in DirecTV Cases
What are you looking for?
|
Dismissing Possession Claims (18USC & 2512) |
NOTE: Because many of these files are large, some users
report difficulty viewing these files. If you receive an error message
after clicking a link to a file, try instead right-clicking and selecting
Save, so the file is saved to your computer. You can then open that
copy and view it.
NEW! Affidavit of former DirecTV Senior Investigator, stating that DirecTV’s campaign is
“an elaborate extortion racket” characterized
by “letters that are full of lies or misrepresentations,” and “a cynical willingness
to abuse the court system by filing some frivolous lawsuits and thereafter bullying
‘little people’ into settlements.”
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
|
8-16-04 |
DirecTV v Marinac, Case No.: 03-4242 MN |
95KB |
|
|
7-28-04 |
DirecTV v Regall, Case No.: 03-1138 EDWI |
26KB |
|
|
7-28-04 |
DirecTV v. Piche, Case No.: 03-1352 EDWI |
22KB |
|
| 6-15-04 | DirecTV v. Treworgy, Case No.:03-428 | 11th CIRCUIT COURT Of Appeals Opinion Affirming That There is No "Mere Possession" Claim | 64 KB |
| 5-27-04 | DirecTV v. Hoverson, Case No.: 4:03cv410 NDTX 5/27/04 | Order Dismissing Mere Possession Claims | 436KB |
| 5-18-04 | DirecTV v. Dartez, Case No.: 04-0159 WD LA 5/18/04 | Order Dismissing Possession Claims | 68 KB |
|
5-6-04 |
DirecTV v. Buchanan, Case No.: 1:03cv267 WDNC |
Order Dismissing Possession Claims Counsel for DirecTV are hereby placed on notice that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USC 1927 and this Court's inherent powers, this Court will consider any future pursuit of a cause of action based on 18 USC 2512 or civil conversion to be a violation of Rule 11 and 28 SUC 1927. Counsel's pursuit of such claims forces Defense counsel to move to dismiss, motions which cause the Defendants to incur additional attorneys fees." |
245 KB |
|
4-27-04 4-29-04 |
In Re: DirecTV Litigation, Case No. 03-MD-02-B-M3 MD LA 4/27/04 In Re: DirecTV Litigation, Case No.: 03-1450-N-1 EDLA 4/29/04 |
Order Dismissing all Possession and Conversion Claims in Louisiana Order Dismissing all Possession and Conversion Claims in Louisiana |
36KB 68KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Grencher, et.al., Case No.: CV 03-03400 (CD CA 4/19/04) |
557KB |
|
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Green, et. al. & DirecTV v. Hower, et. al., Case Nos.: 03cv0810 & 03cv0808 (NDIN 4/19/04) |
102 KB |
|
|
4-8-04 |
DirecTV v. Hooper, Case No.: 03-1404A (LA 4/8/04) |
431 KB |
|
|
4-6-04 |
DirecTV v. Bunnapradist, et. al. Case No.: 03-3399 (CD CA 4/6/04) |
Order Dismissing Possession Claims (Thorough Analysis Reversing Inconsistent Rulings) Post Trial Order Applying 2 Year SOL for Claims under 2511 and 2512, but 1 yr for 605 |
22.6KB 251KB 1.21MB |
|
3-31-04 |
DirecTV v. Smith, Case No.: 03cv1245 (SDOH 3/31/04) |
111KB |
|
|
3-24-04 |
DirecTV v. Solburg, Case No.: 4:03cv242 (NDFL 3/24/04) |
81KB |
|
|
3-22-04 |
DirecTV v. Beasy, Et. Al., Case No.:SA-02-CA-1104-OG (WD TX 03/22/04) |
141KB 141KB |
|
|
3-15-04 |
DirecTV v. Griffin, Case No.: 6:03-2943 (SC 3/15/04) |
Order Dismissing All Claims for Failure to Prosecute ("This is one of a number of lawsuits which the plaintiff is flooding the court with and which in instances such as this it is poorly prepared to litigate. This is the plaintiff's mode of operations. Finally, it is apparent the plaintiff sees the court as its personal domain disregarding the rules of procedures . . . It is unlikely that any sanction will be meaningful to this plaintiff, but dismissal of this action will at least put the plaintiff on notice that its cavalier attitude towards the Rules and Orders of the court is not without consequences. The court does not intend to abandon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to relinquish control of its docket to the whims of the plaintiff.") |
197KB |
|
3-9-04 |
DirecTV v. Lefebvre, Case No.: 03-80719 (SD FL 3/9/04) |
Order Dismissing Possession Claim (reversal of earlier ruling) |
693KB |
|
3-8-04 |
DirecTV v. Hart, et. al., Case No.: C03-0769C (WA 030804) |
Order Dismissing Possession Claim and Overturning Prior Ruling |
109KB |
|
3-1-04 |
DirecTV v. Rumple, et. al. Case No.: 03-06546 (CD CA 03/1/04) |
Order Dismissing Possession Claim (extensive discussion of legislative history of 18 USC 2520)" |
684KB |
|
3-1-04 |
In Re: DirecTV cases (SD MD 3/1/04) |
132KB |
|
|
2-24-04 |
DirecTV v. Cottle, et. al. Case No. 03-04139 WHA (ND CA 2/24/04) |
103KB |
|
|
2-2-04 |
DirecTV v. Ingram et. al. Case No. 1:03cv455 (MD NC 2/2/04) |
Dismissing Mere Possession Claim and Theft / Conversion Claims as Preempted by the Copyright Act |
665KB |
|
1-20-04 |
All DirecTV cases in ED NC. Representative Cause No. 5:02cv699-BR(3)(EDNC 1/2/04) |
Order Dismissing Mere Possession Claim and "Interception" Claims Under 18 USC 2511 Because 2511 Only Protects Unscrambled Signals |
299KB |
|
1-13-04 |
DirecTV v. Goolsby, et. al. Case No.: 6:02-3584-18 (CDSC 1/13/04) |
257KB |
|
|
1-12-04 |
DirecTV v. Dino et.al., Case No.: 4:03cv00335 (EDMO 1/12/04) |
28KB |
|
|
12-30-03 |
In Re: Cases filed by DirecTV (MN 12/30/03) |
28.2KB |
|
|
12-19-03 |
In Re: DirecTV Litigation, (SDIN 12/19/03) |
46.4 KB |
|
|
12-17-03 |
In Re: Cases filed by DirecTV (WDWI 12/17/03) |
121KB |
|
|
12-17-03 |
DIRECTV v. Rochette, Case No.: 1:03cv0165 (WDMI 12/17/03) |
Order Dismissing All Claims, Including Admission by DirecTV that a White Viper Reader/Writer is "a generic ISO 7816 card reader . . . used to read write and modify ISO 7816 smart cards." |
113KB |
|
12-12-03 |
DirecTV v. Kahn, Case No.: CIV-03-507-WH (EDOK 12/12/03) |
704KB |
|
|
12-10-03 |
DirecTV v. Uselton, Case No.: 3-02-1199 (MDTN 12/10/03) |
391KB |
|
|
12-4-03 |
DirecTV v. Jerolleman, Case No.: 03-1465 2003, WL 22697177 at *1 (EDLA 12/4/03) |
42.3 KB |
|
|
12-04-03 |
DirecTV v. Weese, Case No.: 03-CV-252 (EDTN 12/4/03) |
10KB |
|
|
11-24-03 |
DirecTV v. Alberts, et al., Case No.: 1:03cv161 (EDTX 11/24/03) |
93KB |
|
|
11-20-03 |
DirecTV v. Stephenson, Case No.: 03-cv-1985 (NDAL 11/20/03) |
7KB |
|
|
11-20-03 |
DirecTV v. Ayres, Case No.: 03-cv-1690 (NDAL 11/20/03) |
8KB |
|
|
11-20-03 |
DirecTV v. Lee, et. al. (NDIL 11/20/03) |
11KB |
|
|
11-18-03 |
DirecTV v. Cavanaugh, Case No.: 03-60001 (EDMI 11/18/03) |
641KB |
|
|
11-10-03 |
DirecTV v. Patel, Case No.: 03-cv-3442 (NDIL 11/10/03) |
- |
|
|
11-10-03 |
DirecTV v. Swanson, et. al., Case No.: 03-cv-1175 (CDIL 11/10/03) |
15KB |
|
|
11-7-03 |
DirecTV v. Bloomquist, Case No.: 03-1170 (CDIL 11/7/03) |
583KB |
|
|
11-7-03 |
DirecTV v. Beecher 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20128 F.Supp.2d, 2203 WL 23094715 at *3 (SDIN 11/7/03) |
Order Dismissing DirecTV's "Possession" Claims and Severing Multiple Defendants |
111KB |
|
10-30-03 |
DirecTV v. Moore, Case No.: 3:03cv260 (WDNC 10/30/03) |
162KB |
|
|
10-11-03 |
DirecTV v. Nisbett, Case No.: 03-61501-CIV-Huck/Turnoff (SDFL 10/11/03) |
175 KB |
|
|
9-30-03 |
DirecTV v. Jones, et. al., Case No.: 02-2834 (WDTN 9/30/03) | Order Dismissing DirecTV's "Possession" Claims |
202KB |
|
9-16-03 |
DirecTV v. Miller, Case No.: 6:03-cv-1027-Orl-19KRS (MDFL 9/16/03) |
289 KB |
|
|
9-15-03 |
DirecTV v. Westendorf, Case No.: 03-cv-50210 (NDIL 9/15/03) |
12KB |
|
|
9-11-03 |
DirecTV v. Hosey, et al., Case No.: 03-2278-GTV 289 F. Supp.2d 1259, 1264 (KS 9/11/03) |
24.8 |
|
|
9-9-03 |
DirecTV v. Rodriguez, Case No.: 6:03-CV-711-ORL-19DAB (MDFL 9/9/03) |
274 KB |
|
|
8-29-03 |
DirecTV v. Childers, et al., Case No.: 03-A-517-E, 274 F.Supp.2d 1287, 1289 (MDAL 8/29/03) |
245 KB |
|
|
8-27-03 |
DirecTV v. Rendueles, Case No.: 8:03-CV-1053-T-23 MSS (MDFL 8/27/03) |
192 KB |
|
|
8-21-03 |
DirecTV v. Liefer, Case No.: 02-73928 (EDMI 8/21/03) |
30KB |
|
|
8-21-03 |
DirecTV v. Soto, Case No.: 02-73926 (EDMI 8/21/03) |
31KB |
|
|
8-11-03 |
DirecTV v. Treworgy, Case No.: 2:03-CV-428-FtM-29SPC (MDFL 8/11/03) |
181 KB |
|
|
7-8-03 |
DirecTV v. Cardona, Case No.: 6:03-CV-675-Orl-22KRS 275 F. Supp.2d 1357, 1367 (MDFL 7/8/03) |
889 KB |
|
|
6-20-03 |
DirecTV v. Amato, Case No.: 3:03cv355 269 F.Supp.2d 688, 690 (EDVA 6/20/03) |
174 KB |
|
|
6-17-03 |
DirecTV v. Karpinsky, 02-CV-73929 EDMI 6/17/03 |
Order Dismissing DirecTV's Claims (Judge Steeh, ED-Michigan) |
1 MB |
|
4-15-03 |
DirecTV v. Thacker, et. al., Case No,: 6:03-cv-239-Orl-28DAB (MDFL 4/15/03) |
75 KB |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
|
8-17-05 |
DirecTV v Hubbard & McGrath, Case No.: 2:03cv261-P-D (NDMI) |
Summary Judgment for Defendants on all counts. Memorandum Opinion The Court said: "As stated above, DirecTV admits that not only must one have a smart card, a smart card reader/writer, and an unlooper to pirate DirecTV satellite signals, one must also possess the proper software and access codes to effectively rewrite DirecTV access cards to steal DirecTV channels. It is undisputed that DirecTV has no evidence that either Hubbard or McGath possessed the access codes or software. In fact, DirecTV never alleged they did. Rather, DirecTV seeks to hold the defendants liable under 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) for merely alleging that they possessed a smart card reader/writer and/or smart card unlooper. As has been very recently held by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this is not enough to prove liability under § 605(a) or § 2511(1)(a). DirecTV v. Robson, — F.3d –, 2005 WL 1870775, *4 (5th Cir. (La.) August 9, 2005) ("[T]here is conspicuously no civil action for merely possessing or purchasing a pirate access device. Neither § 605(a) nor § 2511(1)(a) is violated by such conduct.")." |
19KB 43KB |
|
8/9/05 |
DirecTV v Robson, No.: 04-30861 |
5th Circuit Case holding that "Where, as here, the evidence demonstrates little more than mere purchase and possession of the two pirate access devices--particularly where there is no evidence as to other DTV components required for interception--such evidence is insufficient to withstand summary judgment on DTV’s claims of actual interception." Also, § 605(e)(4) can apply to individual end users who "manufacture" an interception device, although it would appear that it was unclear whether the defendant in this case ever actually made one. "To summarize, the inferences from the facts in this case cannot stretch to "interception," per § 605(a) and § 2511(1)(a); summary judgment on these claims in favor of Robson was proper. However, the district court erred in categorically excluding "individual users" from claims under § 605(e)(4); summary judgment on this claim is vacated, affording the district court the opportunity to consider in the first instance whether the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate assembly or modification within the meaning of § 605(e)(4)." However, the court noted in footnote 58: "See Robson, 333 F. Supp. 2d at 594 (noting that posting on the website "[a]t first blush . . . may raise a justifiable inference as to assembly")." |
108KB |
|
3-29-05 |
DirecTV v. Deskin, Case No.: 03cv518 CN |
Summary Judgment against DirecTV on all claims; evidence of the purchase of an "unlooper" is insufficient to infer that it was used to intercept. |
59KB |
|
3-11-05 |
DirecTV v. Jacob, Case No.: 03cv1163 EDAL |
27KB 50KB |
|
|
12-06-04 |
DirecTV v. Corbin, Case No.: 03-08717 CDCA |
Order Granting Summary Judgment to claims Under 47 USC 605 and applying one year statute of limitations under California law, and holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled |
254KB |
|
10-26-04 |
DirecTV v Abston, Case No.: 5:03cv223 TX |
Summary Judgment for Defendants on all counts. Gives a good overview of the evidence DTV must submit to avoid summary judgment. Also holds that 605 (e)(4) claims apply only to "manufacturers and sellers", not "individual users". |
508KB |
|
8-23-04 |
DirecTV v Gonzales, Case No.: 03-1170 WDTX |
Dismissing claims for "endeavoring or procuring another to intercept" under 18 USC 2511 |
342 KB |
|
8-23-04 |
DirecTV v Spillman, Case No.: 04-82 WDTX |
Dismissing claims for "endeavoring or procuring another to intercept" under 18 USC 2511 |
342 KB |
|
8-19-04 |
DirecTV v Decroce, et al, Case No.: 03-5199 NJ |
Ruling that DirecTV has no cause of action under 18 USC 2511 (interception) or 18 USC 2512 (possession) Memorandum of law by plaintiff in support of motion to alter or amend judgment and for reargument. Exhibit A Congressional Record - Senate October 1, 1986 |
2MB |
|
8-4-04 |
DirecTV v. Brady, et al, Case No.: 03-1450 EDLA |
Granting Motion to Dismiss claims under 18 USC 2511 per 2 year statute of limitations for cases filed after May 25, 2003. Claims under 47 USC 605 were not dismissed |
695KB |
|
7-29-04 |
DirecTV v. Robson, Case No.: 04-269 EDLA |
Summary Judgment on all "interception" and "distribution" counts where Defendant admitted purchase of unlooper and emulator, and made a posting at "pirates den". |
239KB |
|
7-20-04 |
DirecTV v. Devries, Case No.: 03-388 MDFL |
Order Dismissing Mere Possession Claim Following Reconsideration. The Court : " ... Plaintiff ... must instead pursue its claims based on alleged intentional interception, disclosure or use of illegal pirated communications. ...". |
106KB |
|
7-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Morris, et.al., Case No.: 4:03cv201 EDTX |
Summary Judgment on All Claims Excerpts are as follows: "Most of the affidavits are purely speculative and not in proper form. Even if Whalen’s affidavit was in proper form, it raises no real fact issue for the Court to consider as to Morris’ account. Mere possession cannot rise to a finding of modification. Even if Direct could make Morris look like a pirate based on circumstantial evidence, it could not prove he was one. If Direct cannot prove interception, there can be no award of statutory damages. Given the facts of this case, any award of statutory damages would be purely speculative. Morris stated that he has never intercepted any signal. Even considering the affidavit of Whalen in its improper and conclusionary form, Direct raises no issue to the contrary. Direct’s inability to organize its proof in a coherent and acceptable form leaves the Court with little option but to grant the motion for summary judgment. Unless Direct can submit affidavits in acceptable form, adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and organize its proof in an acceptable way, the Court will have no alternative but to grant like motions. The Court could allow Direct time to supplement but, given what Direct has attached as well as the upcoming trial schedule, the Court declines to grant Direct an opportunity to repair what it most likely cannot fix in any event".
|
422KB |
|
7-7-04 |
DirecTV v. Tanner, Case No.: CV204-005 SDGA |
630KB |
|
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Mosier, et.al., Case No.: 1:03cv307 (EDTX 4/19/04) |
689 KB |
|
|
2-26-04 |
DirecTV v. Garnett, Case No.: C-03-346 (SDTX 2/26/04) |
535KB |
|
|
12-4-03 |
DirecTV v. Elliott, et. al. Case No.: 03-1458 (EDLA 12/4/04) |
43KB |
|
|
11-18-03 |
DirecTV v. Carter, Case No.: 02-74948 (EDMI 11/18/03) |
Stipulated Order of Dismissal because DirecTV admits it has no admissible evidence of interception |
33KB |
|
10-27-03 |
DirecTV v. Bush, Case No.: H-03-1765 (SDTX 10/27/03) |
424KB |
|
|
10-22-03 |
DirecTV v. McFadden, Case No.: 1:02-cv-924 (WDMI 10/22/03) |
123KB |
|
|
10-3-03 |
DirecTV v. Murray, Case No.: 5:03-0045-18 (SC 10/3/03) |
472 KB 328 KB |
|
|
10-02-03 |
DirecTV v. Stapleton, Case No.: 02-74842 (EDMI 10/2/03) | Stipulated Order of Dismissal; DirecTV does not oppose Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment |
29KB |
|
8-19-03 |
DirecTV v. Harnatkiewicz, Case No. 02-3198-18 (CDSC 8/19/03) |
179KB |
|
|
8-18-03 |
DirecTV v. Fisher, Case No.: 6:02-3197-18 (SC 8/18/03) |
181 KB |
|
|
8-18-03 |
DirecTV v. Henrie, Case No.: 3:02-3067-18 (SC 8/18/03) |
60.2 KB |
|
|
8-18-03 |
DirecTV v. Hodge, Case No.: 2:02-3041-18 (SC 8/18/03) |
62.6 KB |
|
|
8-18-03 |
DirecTV v. McKay, Case No.: 3:02-3195-18 (SC 8/18/03) |
174 KB |
|
|
7-22-03 |
DirecTV v. Stewart, Case No.: 3:02-3195-18 (SC 7/22/03) |
424 KB |
|
|
7-22-03 |
DirecTV v. Maxted, Case No.: 1:02-3192-18 (SC 7/22/03) |
405 KB |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
|
7-7-04 |
In Re: Cases Filed by DirecTV (WDNC 07/7/04) |
Order dismissing all cases in the Western District of North Carolina against second and subsequent defendants, and stating, "The Court . . . is concerned that many of these lawsuits may not have a good faith basis in either law or fact," acknowledging DirecTV's "efforts to target person who might have pirated its satellite TV signals as an 'elaborate extortion campaign,'" and further stating, "The Court warns the Plaintiff that it will not hesitate to impose appropriate sanctions if warranted." |
139KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Green, et. al. & DirecTV v. Hower, et. al., Case Nos.: 03cv0810 & 03cv0808 (NDIN 4/19/04) |
102 KB |
|
|
3-22-04 |
DirecTV v. Beasy, Et. Al., Case No.:SA-02-CA-1104-OG (WD TX 03/22/04) |
141KB 141KB |
|
|
2-18-04 |
DirecTV v. Bates, et. al. Case No. 03cv01060 (NM 02/18/04) |
147KB |
|
|
1-28-04 |
DirecTV v. Banks et. al., Case No. 03-610 (NM 1/28/04) |
164.KB |
|
|
12-09-03 |
In Re: Cases filed by DirecTV (AZ 12/9/03) |
Order Dismissing Claims Against Multiple Defendants in 16 Lawsuits |
193KB |
|
11-7-03 |
DirecTV v. Beecher 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20128 F.Supp.2d, 2203 WL 23094715 at *3 (SDIN 11/7/03) |
Order Dismissing DirecTV's "Possession" Claims and Severing Multiple Defendants |
111KB |
|
11-7-03 |
DirecTV v. Aggarwal, Case No.: 03-cv-3461 (CDIL 11/7/03) |
10KB |
|
|
10-22-03 |
DirecTV v. Greg Childs, et. al., Case No.: C2-03-446 (SDOH 10/22/03) |
73KB |
|
|
10-21-03 |
In Re: Multi-Defendant Cases filed by DirecTV, Inc. (WDMI 10/21/03) |
200KB |
|
|
10-02-03 |
DirecTV v. Barrett, et. al., Case No.: 03-3242 RHK/AJB (MN 10/02/03) |
155KB |
|
|
9-11-03 |
In Re: Cases filed by DirecTV (EDMI 9/11/03) |
200KB |
|
|
6-3-03 |
DirecTV v. Garbutt, et al., Case No.: 03-CV-3499 (NDIL 6/3/03) |
95 KB |
|
|
6-3-03 |
DirecTV v. Montes, et al., Case No.: 03-CV-3463 (NDIL 6/3/03) |
95 KB |
|
|
6-3-03 |
DirecTV v. Davidson, et al., Case No.: 03-CV-3459 (NDIL 6/3/03) |
95 KB |
|
|
6-3-03 |
Numerous Ohio DirecTV Cases (NDOH 6/3/03) |
117 KB |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
|
4-8-04 |
DirecTV v. Hooper, Case No.: 03-1404A (LA 4/8/04) |
431 KB |
|
|
1-20-04 |
All DirecTV cases in ED NC. Representative Cause No. 5:02cv699-BR(3)(EDNC 1/2/04) |
Order Dismissing Mere Possession Claim and "Interception" Claims Under 18 USC 2511 Because 2511 Only Protects Unscrambled Signals |
299KB |
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
| 6-7-04 | DirecTV v. Cashe, et.al. (multiple Case Nos) SDIN 6/7/04 | Order Dismissing Indiana State Law Claims for Fraud and Deception as Preempted by the Copyright Act | 92KB |
|
5-12-04 |
DirecTV v. Prinster, et al., Case No.: 4:03cv0338 EDMO |
54KB |
|
|
5-11-04 |
DirecTV v. Manzella, et.al., Case No.: 4:03cv00336 EDMO |
49KB |
|
|
5-6-04 |
DirecTV v. Buchanan, Case No.: 1:03cv267 WDNC |
Order to Dismiss Conversion Claims Counsel for DirecTV are hereby placed on notice that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USC 1927 and this Court's inherent powers, this Court will consider any future pursuit of a cause of action based on 18 USC 2512 or civil conversion to be a violation of Rule 11 and 28 SUC 1927. Counsel's pursuit of such claims forces Defense counsel to move to dismiss, motions which cause the Defendants to incur additional attorneys fees." |
245 KB |
|
4-27-04 |
In Re: DirecTV Litigation, Case No. 03-MD-02-B-M3 MD LA 4/27/04 |
Order Dismissing all Possession and Conversion Claims in Louisiana |
36KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Grencher, et.al., Case No.: CV 03-03400 (CD CA 4/19/04) |
Order Dismissing Theft & Conversion Claims as Preempted by Copyright Act |
557KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Green, et. al. & DirecTV v. Hower, et. al., Case Nos.: 03cv0810 & 03cv0808 (NDIN 4/19/04) |
Dismissing Theft & Conversion Claims as Preempted by Copyright Act |
102 KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Mosier, et.al., Case No.: 1:03cv307 (EDTX 4/19/04) |
689 KB |
|
|
4-8-04 |
DirecTV v. Hooper, Case No.: 03-1404A (LA 4/8/04) |
431 KB |
|
|
2-2-04 |
DirecTV v. Ingram et. al. Case No. 1:03cv455 (MD NC 2/2/04) |
Dismissing Theft & Conversion Claims as Preempted by Copyright Act |
665KB |
|
11-7-03 |
DirecTV v. Beecher 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20128 F.Supp.2d, 2203 WL 23094715 at *3 (SDIN 11/7/03) |
Dismissing Theft & Conversion Claims as Preempted by Copyright Act |
111KB |
|
|
|||
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
| 5-13-05 | DirecTV v. Norris, et.al., Case No.: 3:03cv241 WDNC | On granting a default judgment for DirecTV, the Judge and awarded attorneys fees for $93.06 and costs for $111.43. The Judge denied the motion under 605(e)(4). The judge stated that DirecTV hasn’t been harmed and minimizes the impact of DirecTV having its signal stolen, e.g. “aside from potentially receiving DirecTV’s satellite television programming free of charge for a period of time, there is no indication that Defendant otherwise profited from his conduct.” | 269KB |
|
3-11-05 |
DirecTV v. Carpenter, Case No.: 03-5247 NDCA |
136KB |
|
|
5-28-04 |
DirecTV v. Brown, Case No.: 03-234-CV-ORL-22-KRS | 11th Circuit Case Affirming that an award of liquidated damages is discretionary under 18 USC 2520. (The trial court in its default judgment refused to award liquidated damages under this section (although it did award "actual damages" under 47 USC 605) | 75 KB |
|
5-24-04 |
DirecTV v. Austin, Case No.: 1:03cv118 WDNC |
Default Judgment for DirecTV awarding only $1,000 under 47 USC 605, $0 under 18 USC 2511. Also Rejects DirecTV argument & James Whalen affidavit that interception may be inferred from possession: “[I]t is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show that a defendant possessed equipment capable of intercepting a communication in order to show that the defendant actually received or intercepted the plaintiffs communication. Rather, the plaintiff must produce circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that there was an actual interception.” |
249 KB |
|
5-19-04 |
DirecTV v. La, Case No.: 03-5630 MN 5/19/04 |
Order refusing to award DirecTV any damages or attorneys fees on Default Judgment |
17 KB |
|
5-10-04 |
DirecTV v. Broughton, Case No.: 03-cv-1212 SDOH 5/10/04 |
19KB |
|
| 4-22-04 | DirecTV v. Carswell, Case No.: 1:03cv116 WDNC | Default Judgment for DirecTV awarding only $1,000 under 47 USC 605, $0 under 18 USC 2511. Also Rejects DirecTV argument & James Whalen affidavit that interception may be inferred from possession: “[I]t is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show that a defendant possessed equipment capable of intercepting a communication in order to show that the defendant actually received or intercepted the plaintiffs communication. Rather, the plaintiff must produce circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that there was an actual interception.” | 201 KB |
|
4-20-04 |
DirecTV v. Hackman, Case No.: 03-S-1064-J NDAL 4/20/04 |
Order Denying DirecTV's Motion for Default Judgment for $134,558.39 |
79 KB |
|
4-19-04 |
DirecTV v. Grencher, et.al., Case No.: CV 03-03400 (CD CA 4/19/04) |
557KB |
|
| 3-25-04 | DirecTV v Forman, Case No.: H-03-770 SDTX | Damages award where Defendant admitted distributing 47 devices and intercepting for 6 months. "Awarding DirecTV $2.3 million in damages would be counterproductive. Instead the court will order Forman to pay DirecTV $14,100 in statutory damages and $3,200 in attorney's fees. The basis of the statutory fees is 47 devices multiplied by $50 (an approximate monthly fee for DirecTV service) multiplied by six (the number of months Forman bought and used the devices). | 120 KB |
|
3-17-04 |
DirecTV v. Haines, Case No.: 03cv1221 (SD OH 3/17/04) |
84.4KB |
|
|
3-15-04 |
DirecTV v. Malizie, et. al., Case No.: 03cv403S (WD NY 3/15/04) |
Default Judgment Damage Award of $1,000 plus $850 in attorneys fees. We think it logical that Congress chose to make the award of [statutory] damages discretionary, given the potential of the law to bring financial ruin to persons of modest means, even in cases of trivial transgressions." |
64KB |
|
3-3-04 |
DirecTV v. King, Case No.: 03cv1382 (ED OH 3/3/04) |
Order refusing to enter stipulated injunction (apparently negotiated in settlement) |
318KB |
|
2-23-04 |
DirecTV v. McPeak Case No. 503cv693 (ED NC 2/23/04) |
48KB |
|
| 2-19-04 | DirecTV v. Chorba, Case No.: 3:CV-03-0843 (MDPA 2/19/04) | Damage Awards of $1,000, $1,335 and $1,585.87 to Plaintiff. | 26KB |
|
1-30-04 |
DirecTV v. West, Case No.: 2:03cv112 WD NC 1/3/04 |
Damage Award of $1,000 plus $536.96 in fees & $245.00 in costs |
131KB |
|
1-22-04 |
In Re: DirecTV cases (WD MI 1/22/04) |
Order for Hearing on Damages Following Entry of Default for DirecTV |
8.5KB |
|
12-17-03 |
DirecTv v. Kaas, et. al. 294 F.Supp.2d 1044 Case No.: 03-4047 (ND IA 12/17/03) |
111KB |
|
|
12-09-03 |
DirecTV v. Albright 2003 WL 22956416, Case No.: 03-4603 (EDPA 12/9/03) |
Order Denying DirecTV Damages Request and Ordering Damages of Only $1,240 ($1,000 statutory minimum + $250 filing fees) |
92.4KB |
|
8-4-03 |
DirecTV v. Myers, et.al., Case No.: C02-4103 NDIA 8/4/03 |
Default Judgment Damage Award of $1,000 plus $850 in attorneys fees |
151 KB |
|
|
|||
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
| 6-3-04 | Harrisonville Telephone Company v. Wood, Case No.: 03-342 SDIL 6/3/04 | Jury Verdict Against DirecTV | 187KB |
|
Date |
Citation |
Document |
Size |
|
4/28/05 |
Comcast Cable Communications v. Noel Adubato, Case 04-4643 NJ |
Order in Comcast litigation sanctioning attorneys (Lonstein) in television piracy claim. (Lonstein has represented DirecTV in many lawuits)
|
99 KB |
|
3/22/05 |
DirecTV v. Bonilla, et. al. Case No.: 03-2384 NJ |
Order confirming that DirecTV's Madvig settlement agreement is not confidential, and stating that DirecTV litigation has: "nagging sense of inequity" "erroneously named defendants" "grave questions about the misuse of the power of the courts" "litigation tactics aimed at hindering discovery and forcing monetary settlements from those unable to fight a drawn-out legal battle" |
174KB |
|
1/11/05 |
Campagne v. DirecTV, Case No.: 04-0387 MDTN |
Court rejects DirecTV’s Request to Dismiss Malicious Prosecution Suit Against It, based on Affidavits of Former DirecTV Investigators Fisher and Bautista |
512KB |
| 12/22/04 | DirecTV v. Bonilla, et. al., Case No.: 03-2384 NJ | Reply to Motion to Quash Subpoena to Visa to Obtain Credit Card Records. This Reply does an excellent job of juxtaposing several contradictory DirecTV affidavits and arguments. | 346KB |
|
8-4-04 |
DirecTV v. Brady, et al, Case No.: 03-1450 EDLA |
Granting Motion to Dismiss claims under 18 USC 2511 per 2 year statute of limitations for cases filed after May 25, 2003. Claims under 47 USC 605 were not dismissed |
695KB |
| 6-15-04 | DirecTV v. Brady, Case No.: 03-1450 EDLA 6/15/04 | Report of Louisiana Federal Court on effect of invoking the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to DirecTV Discovery | 342KB |
| 5-27-04 | DirecTV v. Hoverson, Case No.: 4:03cv410 NDTX 5/27/04 | Dismissing Claims under 18 USC 2511 for "endeavoring to intercept" / "procuring other persons to intercept" | 436KB |
|
4-16-04 |
DirecTV v. Lee, et. al., Case No.: 1:03cv306 (EDTX 4/14/04) |
Order Denying DirecTV Motion for Default Judgment and stating that DirecTV's actions are "an aggravating waste of the court's time." |
39KB |
|
4-14-04 |
DirecTV v. Rochette, Case No.: 1:03cv165 (WDMI 4/14/04) |
Order Inviting Additional Briefing For An Award of Sanctions Under 28 USC 1927
|
20KB |
|
4-12-04 |
DirecTV v. Grodzicki, Case No.: 03-71002 (EDMI 4/12/04) |
546KB |
|
|
4-6-04 |
DirecTV v. Bunnapradist, et. al. Case No.: 03-3399 (CD CA 4/6/04) |
Order Dismissing Possession Claims (Thorough Analysis Reversing Inconsistent Rulings) Post Trial Order (Applying 2 Year Statute of Limitations for Claims under 47 USC 605) |
22.6KB 251KB 1.21MB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-30-04 |
DirecTV v. Haston, et.al., Case No.:03-0228-CV-W-HFS (WDMO 3/30/04) |
26KB |
|
|
3-26-04 |
DirecTV v. Samburg et.al., Case No.: F 03-6243 (ED CA 3/26/04) |
Order that DirecTV pay $500 in sanctions for not responding to discovery. "[B]ecause there is a history, both in this case and others filed in this court, of plaintiff putting forth less than adequate effort in conducting the litigation and following the court's rules, the court will impose sanctions in the amount of $500.00 against plaintiff." |
133KB |
|
3-23-04 |
DirecTV v. Antoniadias, Et. Al., Case No.: 03-597 (NV 3/23/04) |
Order Granting Motion to Compel DirecTV to Disclose Information |
72KB |
|
1/5/04 |
DirecTV v. Truong, Case No. 4:03cv486 (ND TX 1/5/04) |
Order Dismissing All Claims at DirecTV's Request (Who Did Not Respond to Summary Judgment Motion) |
29.5KB 327KB |
|
12-03-03 |
In Re: Cases filed by DirecTV (WDMI 12/3/03) |
14.8 KB |
|
|
10-3-03 |
DirecTV v. Murray, Case No.: 5:03-0045-18 (SC 10/3/03) |
472 KB 328 KB |
|
|
8-11-03 |
DirecTV v. Bloom et al., Case No.: 3:03cv154/LAC/MD (NDFL 8/11/03) |
Order Sanctioning DirecTV $250 For Not Making Required Disclosures |
58KB |
|
6-23-03 |
DirecTV v. Grice, et al., Case No.: 03-3536 LGB (CDCA 6/23/03) |
DirecTV Filing Admitting That Claims Against Multiple Defendants Are "Separate and Unrelated" (see p. 3) |
504KB |
|
|
|||