DirecTV, LLC v. Mackey et al
Filing
33
Correction of 32 Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 12/13/13. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
DIRECTV, LLC,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
Case No. C-13-01619-RMW
FINAL JUDGMENT
v.
AIDAN MACKEY et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
On November 13, 2013, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
20
judge, entered default judgment, but deferred awarding damages until the court could hold an
21
evidentiary hearing. Dkt. No. 29. On December 13, 2013, the court held an evidentiary hearing to
22
determine damages.
23
The court may award statutory damages up to $10,000 for the violation of 47 U.S.C.
24
§ 605(a). 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C). In addition, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) states that the court
25
“shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an
26
aggrieved party who prevails.” The court finds an award to plaintiff DirecTV of $7,500 in statutory
27
damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C) and $5,341 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court declines
28
to award enhanced damages for willfulness under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
FINAL JUDGMENT
Case No. C-13-01619-RMW
RDS
-1-
1
Therefore, the court orders that DirecTV is entitled to recover a total of $12,841 from
2
defendants Gerard Francis Kehoe and Elizabeth Josephine Kehoe, jointly and severally, in their
3
individual capacities and as principals of Katie Bloom's Inc. II, a/k/a Katie Bloom's Irish Pub a/k/a
4
Katie Blooms.
5
6
7
Dated: December 13, 2013
_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT
Case No. C-13-01619-RMW
RDS
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?