DIRECTV, LLC v. Fields et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLCs claims against Defendant Brittany Fields are voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; (2) Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLCs Motion for Partial Summary Judg ment (Doc. # 36 ) against Defendants James Fields, d/b/a Fields Cablevision; Walkertown Cable Services, LLC; and Daniel Boone Motor Inn, Inc. is GRANTED as to liability under § 605 (a) of the Telecommunications Act; (3) Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLCs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #36) against Defendant Altro T.V. Co., Inc. is construed as a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, and so construed is GRANTED; (4) With respect to damages, an Evid entiary Hearing is set for 11/22/2017 11:00 AM in LONDON before Judge David L. Bunning; and (5) Clerk shall mail copy of MOO to James Fields, Walkertown Cable, Daniel Boone Motor Inn and Alto TV. Altro T.V. Co., Inc. (a Kentucky Corporation) and Brittany Fields terminated. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 10/2/17.(SYD)cc: COR, mailed as directed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-93-DLB-HAI
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
JAMES FIELDS, ET AL.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 36). In its motion, DIRECTV, LLC (“DIRECTV”) seeks
partial summary judgment on its Telecommunications Act claim against Defendants
James Fields, d/b/a Fields Cablevision; Walkertown Cable Services, LLC (“Walkertown
Cable”); and Daniel Boone Motor Inn, Inc. (“Daniel Boone Motor Inn”) (collectively
“Defendants”). DIRECTV also seeks partial summary judgment against Defendant Altro
T.V. Co., Inc. (“Altro T.V. Co.”) and dismissal of its claims against Defendant Brittany
Fields, who has neither been served nor filed a responsive pleading.
Defendants have failed to timely respond despite the Court’s June 13, 2017 Order
requiring them to do so. (Doc. # 39). Therefore, Defendants having failed to respond,
and the time to do so having expired, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review. The Court
has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a).1
With respect to DIRECTV’s other claims (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion), this Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Given the present procedural context, and Defendants’ failure to respond to the
Motion, the factual summary that follows is taken from DIRECTV’s Complaint (Doc. # 1)
and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 36). DIRECTV operates a direct
broadcast satellite system responsible for delivering television channels to residences
and businesses equipped with specialized DIRECTV receiving equipment. (Doc. # 1 at
¶ 12). The receiving equipment consists of a satellite dish, a receiver, and an access
card necessary to operate the receiver. Id.
DIRECTV’s residential customers are bound by the terms and conditions set forth
in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement. Id. at ¶ 19. The Agreement prohibits “any rebroadcasting or retransmitting of DIRECTV programming, or viewing or use of that
programming at a location other than the subscriber’s residence.” Id. DIRECTV offers
customers additional receivers so that households may have more than one television
per home. Id. at ¶ 20. The additional receivers “mirror” the level of services authorized
for the first receiver. Id. In order to be eligible for “mirroring,” DIRECTV requires each
additional receiver to be physically located in the customer’s household. Id.
DIRECTV also provides services to customers who wish to display DIRECTV
programming in “lodging institutions such as hotels, motels, or resorts through a Satellite
Master Antenna Television (“SMATV”) account.” Id. at ¶ 21. The SMATV Viewing
Agreement “prohibits the reception or viewing of DIRECTV programming at any location
other than the property approved by DIRECTV.” Id. at ¶ 23. Additionally, the Viewing
Agreement further prohibits any “reselling, transmitting, or rebroadcasting of DIRECTV
programming outside the designated property.” Id.
Defendant James Fields had a residential account with DIRECTV and had also
created DIRECTV accounts on behalf of several businesses that he owns and operates.2
Id. at ¶ 25-27. It is this connection that provides the basis for DIRECTV’S claims against
Defendants. Specifically, Defendant James Fields owns and operates cable systems that
supply cable-television services to residential and commercial customers under the
business names Fields Cablevision, Walkertown Cable, and Altro T.V. Co. Id. at ¶ 24.
DIRECTV alleges that beginning as early as November 1999, when the Defendants’ first
account was opened, and continuing through June 2015, when their last known account
was terminated, Defendants “used false information to open at least five DIRECTV
customer accounts, and in turn used those fraudulent accounts to obtain and activate at
least 76 integrated receivers that were used to decrypt and view DIRECTV programming.”
(Doc. # 36 at 2). DIRECTV alleges that Defendants distributed the programming over
cable systems owned and operated by Defendants without DIRECTV’s knowledge or
consent. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 37).
In February 2014, after receiving a report that DIRECTV programming was
possibly being used as the source of television programming by several cable companies
located in and around eastern Kentucky, DIRECTV undertook an investigation to
determine whether Defendants were rebroadcasting DIRECTV programming to
Defendants’ own cable customers. (Doc. # 36 at 9). The undisputed evidence shows
that Defendants Fields Cablevision, Walkertown Cable Services, and Altro T.V. Co., were
Defendant James Fields created a SMATV account on behalf of Defendant Daniel Boone
Motor Inn, Inc. and executed the SMATV Agreement. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 28). Additionally, Defendant
James Fields created a residential account on behalf of Altro T.V. Co., Inc. under the fictitious
name “James Sego.” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 29).
fraudulently obtaining DIRECTV satellite television programming and distributing that
programming over their own cable systems to customers. Id.
To confirm Defendants’ fraudulent activities, DIRECTV transmitted an On-Screen
Display (“OSD”) to receivers associated with Defendants’ accounts. The OSD was visible
only to persons receiving programing through the Defendants’ accounts. (Doc. # 1 at ¶
37). The OSD directed viewers to call a telephone number that was set up as part of
DIRECTV’s investigation. Id. at ¶ 38. DIRECTV received at least nine calls in response
to the OSD. Callers reported that they received a message at their residences where
they obtained television programming through a cable wire running to their television
rather than a receiver box. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 38). Five callers indicated that they were not
DIRECTV customers, but instead, were customers of Defendants’ cable service(s). (Doc.
# 36 at 12). One of the callers reported being a customer of Defendant Altro T.V. Co.,
and another caller reported being a customer of Walkertown Cable. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 38).
DIRECTV has been unable to determine the exact number of cable-television customers
using the Defendants’ cable systems. (Doc. # 32).
Defendant Brittany Fields is voluntarily dismissed from this action.
DIRECTV has indicated its intent to voluntarily dismiss its claims against
Defendant Brittany Fields pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Doc. #
36 at ¶ 1). Voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff is permitted without a court order by filing a
notice of dismissal before “the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Thus, since Defendant Brittany Fields
has neither been served nor filed a responsive pleading, DIRECTV is entitled to
voluntarily dismiss its claims against Defendant Brittany Fields. Therefore, given that
DIRECTV has indicated its intent to do so, and no order from the Court being required,
Defendant Brittany Fields is dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(b).
DIRECTV’s construed Motion for Default Judgment is granted.
DIRECTV seeks partial summary judgment against Defendant Altro T.V. Co, Inc.
However, given the procedural posture of DIRECTV’s claim, the Motion will instead be
construed as a Motion for Default Judgment. On August 28, 2015, the Clerk entered
Default against Defendant Altro T.V. Co., for failure to plead or otherwise defend itself
against DIRECTV’s Complaint. (Doc. # 20). DIRECTV has not filed a Motion for Default
Judgment against Altro T.V. Co., but has instead filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Thus, that Motion will be construed as a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. DIRECTV’s construed Motion for Default Judgment
is granted; however, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the Court will conduct an evidentiary
hearing to determine the amount of damages for which Altro T.V. Co., is liable.
DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists where “there is
sufficient evidence … for a jury to return a verdict for” the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The “moving party bears the burden of
showing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact.” Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor
Co., 532 F.3d 469, 483 (6th Cir. 2008).
Once a party files a properly supported motion for summary judgment, it is then
left to the adverse party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. However, “the mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient.” Id. at 252.
The question the Court must ultimately decide is “whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Back v. Nestle USA, Inc., 694 F.3d 571, 575
(6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52).
As the party moving for partial summary judgment, DIRECTV bears the burden of
showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Assuming DIRECTV has satisfied its burden, the burden then shifts to Defendants to
demonstrate “by deposition, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on
file—showing specific facts that reveal a genuine issue for trial.”
Laster v. City of
Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 726 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324)(1986)).
In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DIRECTV asserts that the
uncontested evidence establishes a clear violation of § 605(a) of the Telecommunications
Act, entitling DIRECTV to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. # 36). That provision of the
Telecommunications Act provides, in pertinent part:
[N]o person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in
transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall
divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or
reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or
attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such
communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing
officers of the various communicating centers over which the
communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he
is serving, (5) in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority.
47 U.S.C. § 605(a). The Sixth Circuit has held that § 605(a) also applies to satellite
transmissions. Cablevision of Mich., Inc. v. Sports Palace, Inc., 27 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.
1994). Additionally, § 605(e)(3)(A) provides a cause of action. “[A]ny person aggrieved
by any violation of subsection (a) … may bring a civil action in a United States district
court.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(A).
DIRECTV alleges that by creating and maintaining both residential and SMATV
accounts with false information for an improper purpose, installing and maintaining
DIRECTV receiving equipment at unauthorized locations, rebroadcasting and
retransmitting DIRECTV programming through Defendants’ cable system(s), and
distributing and selling DIRECTV programming to the Defendants’ customers, the
Defendants have “received and assisted others in receiving DIRECTV’s encrypted
satellite transmissions of television programming without prior authorization or payment
to DIRECTV in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a).” (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 42). DIRECTV further
alleges that Defendants’ violations have deprived DIRECTV of “subscription revenues
and other valuable consideration,” compromised “DIRECTV’s security and accounting
systems,” interfered with DIRECTV’s “contractual and regulatory obligations,” and
obstructed “prospective business relations.” Id. at ¶ 43.
DIRECTV’s Motion is uncontested because Defendants have failed to respond,
despite the Court’s specific request for a response and an extended time to do so. (Doc.
# 39). Joint Local Rule 7.1(c) provides that “[f]ailure to timely respond to a motion may
be grounds for granting the motion.” LR 7.1(c). However, the Court’s inquiry must not
stop there. The Sixth Circuit has held that prior to dismissing an action, the Court must
still “consider the merits of the underlying motion.” Stough v. Mayville Cnty. Schs., 138
F.3d 612, 614 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 452 (6th Cir. 1991)).
More specifically, “[a] district court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of a movant
simply because the adverse party has not responded.” Id. at 614 (citing Carver at 455).
“The court is required, at minimum, to examine the movant’s motion for summary
judgment to ensure that he has discharged [his initial] burden.” Id. Accordingly, the Court
will consider the merits of DIRECTV’s Motion, despite Defendants’ failure to respond.
To prevail on its claim against Defendants, DIRECTV must establish that
Defendants “received, assisted in receiving, or intercepted DIRECTV satellite
transmissions.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Beauchamp, 302 F. Supp. 2d 786, 791 (W.D. Mich.
2004). A plaintiff need not produce direct evidence that the communication was received
or intercepted, but instead, may rely upon circumstantial evidence. DIRECTV, Inc. v.
Hyatt, 302 F.Supp.2d 797, 802 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (citing Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573,
1578 (11th Cir. 1990)). Thus, in order for summary judgment to be granted, “plaintiff must
produce circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was an actual
interception.” Id. at 803. By contrast, “it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show that
a defendant possessed equipment capable of intercepting a communication.” DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Gilliam, 303 F. Supp. 2d 864, 871 (W.D. Mich. 2004). DIRECTV must show that
the Defendants actually received or intercepted its communication. Id.
DIRECTV’s circumstantial evidence of Defendants’ actual interception of
DIRECTV’s signal is substantial. DIRECTV has alleged the following facts that are
undisputed. In February of 2014, DIRECTV received a report that its programming was
possibly being used as the source of television programming by several cable companies
located in and around eastern Kentucky. (Doc. # 36 at 9). All of the Defendants’ accounts
shared common service and billing addresses.
Id. at 9.
Customer Service Department received numerous incoming calls regarding the accounts
from the same telephone numbers.
Those telephone numbers were linked to
Defendants James Fields, and the cable companies doing business as Fields
Cablevision, Walkertown Cable, Daniel Boone Motor Inn, and Altro T.V. Co. Id. Five
DIRECTV subscriber accounts were identified as being used to retransmit DIRECTV
programming without authorization to Defendants’ cable customers. Id. DIRECTV then
launched its on screen displays (“OSD”), which directed persons receiving the message
to call DIRECTV. Id. at 11. In response to the OSD, DIRECTV received nine calls; five
of the callers stated they were not DIRECTV customers, but were instead Defendants’
customers. Id. at 12.
As the party moving for summary judgment, DIRECTV has satisfied its burden of
showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The
burden now shifts to Defendants to demonstrate “by deposition, answers to
interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file—showing specific facts that reveal a
genuine issue for trial.” Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 726 (citing Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 324). Defendants have failed to set forth any facts, let alone “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. Instead,
Defendants have merely put forth general denials contained in their Answers to
DIRECTV’s Complaint (Docs. # 12, 13, and 14). Through their failure to respond to
DIRECTV’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendants “have failed to meet their
reciprocal burden of summary judgment of showing a genuine issue of material fact or a
dispute as to the law cited by Plaintiffs.” Local No. 207 Bridge, Structural, Ornamental &
Reinforcing Ironworkers Annuity Plan v. Ruggery Steel, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-1387, 2017
WL 1545127, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2017).
As a result, this Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact
programming. Because there are no questions of material fact concerning issues of
liability, DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its Telecommunications
Act claim. Accordingly, DIRECTV’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 36) is
granted as to liability.
Defendant James Fields is vicariously liable for violations of § 605(a).
DIRECTV also seeks to hold Defendant James Fields vicariously liable for the
actions taken by the corporate defendants through their employees. (Doc. # 36 at 18).
Defendant Fields is vicariously liable if he had “a right and ability to supervise the
violations, as well as an obvious and direct financial interest in the misconduct.” J&J
Sports Prods., Inc., v. Jaschkowitz, No. 5:14-CV-440-REW, 2016 WL 2727015, at *2
(E.D. Ky. May 6, 2016) (quoting J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. 291 Bar & Lounge, LLC, 648
F. Supp. 2d 469, 473 (E.D. N.Y. 2009)).
DIRECTV claims that there is no question that Fields satisfies the first
requirement—as the owner/member of Fields Cablevision, Walkertown Cable, and Daniel
Boone Motor Inn, Fields had the right and the ability to supervise the conduct of the
companies. (Doc. # 36 at 19). Furthermore, DIRECTV also alleges that the second
requirement is satisfied—Fields had a direct financial benefit stemming from the
misconduct. Id. Fields “owns and manages” the corporate entities, “which gave him the
right and ability to supervise the violations and the requisite financial interest.” Joe Hand
Promotions, Inc. v. Rizzi, No. 12–2526, 2013 WL 6243824, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 3,
2013) (imposing vicarious liability for § 605(a) violations). The Court agrees.
Defendant James Fields had “a right and ability to supervise the violations as well
as an obvious and direct financial interest in the misconduct.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc.,
2016 WL 2727015, at *2. DIRECTV has met its burden on summary judgment and
Defendant James Fields has failed to meet his reciprocal burden. Ruggery Steel, 2017
WL 1545127 at 5. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of DIRECTV
and finds that Defendant Fields is vicariously liable for the acts taken by the corporate
DIRECTV’s Request for Damages and Other Relief
In addition to its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DIRECTV also asks the
Court to award monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and permanent injunctive
relief as provided for by 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B). The Court will address each request
DIRECTV also seeks to hold Defendant James Fields personally liable for violations of
§ 605(a), separate and apart from the actions of his companies and employees. (Doc. # 36 at
18). Specifically, DIRECTV alleges that “[t]he uncontested evidence and Fields’s own admissions
in his Answer to the Complaint clearly establish that he was the owner/member of Defendants
Walkertown Cable and Daniel Boone Motor Inn, and a direct actor in the planning and
implementation of the unlawful scheme.” Id. DIRECTV cites case law establishing that a member
of a limited-liability company may be held personally liable if he or she participates in a tort
committed by the limited-liability company. Id. (citing Dzurilla v. All Am. Homes, LLC, No. 5:07CV-239-KSF, 2010 WL 55923, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2010)). However, DIRECTV’s tort claims
are not included in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Instead, DIRECTV has moved for
partial summary judgment on its claims against Defendants’ for violating § 605(a). Id. Accordingly,
the Court declines to hold Defendant Fields personally liable for the corporate defendants’ § 605
Under the Telecommunications Act, an aggrieved party may elect either to recover
actual or statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i). DIRECTV has elected statutory
damages because of the difficulty of calculating the actual damages suffered. (Doc. # 36
at 20). The statute provides that “the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory
damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum
of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Furthermore, “[i]n any case in which the court finds that the violation
was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or
private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages,
whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation of
subsection (a) of this section.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).
Based on the current record, the Court is unable to award damages. The Sixth
Circuit has held that “[i]f the District Court determines that” Defendants are subject to
judgment as a matter of law, “this does not resolve issues relating to damages.” Antione
v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995).4
Although DIRECTV has
suggested how this Court should calculate damages (Doc. # 36 at 20-23), at this stage in
the litigation, these pleadings are not conclusive. Antione, 66 F.3d at 110. Instead, where
damages are unliquidated, judgment as a matter of law “admits only defendant’s liability
and the amount of liability must be proved.” Id. (citing Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 681 F.2d
1015, 1026 (5th Cir. 1982)). Thus, the Court must hold “an evidentiary proceeding in
The Sixth Circuit, in Antione, specifically discusses default judgment rather than judgment
as a matter of law. While the two are procedurally different, default judgment and judgment as a
matter of law are similar in this case and Antione because both are a result of Defendants’ failure
which the defendant has the opportunity to contest the amount [of damages].” Id. (citing
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1992)).
Accordingly, even if Defendants are bound to issues of liability, they still have “the
opportunity to respond to the issue of damages.” Id. (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, 973
F.2d at 160-61).
2. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
By statute, DIRECTV is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and
costs. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3). However, at this point in the
case, the Court will not award attorney’s fees and costs because DIRECTV has not
provided the Court with sufficient information to make such a determination. The Court
will address DIRECTV’s request for attorney’s fees and costs as part of the damages
DIRECTV also seeks a permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants from continuing
to violate § 605(a). DIRECTV correctly points to § 605(e)(3)(B)(i), which permits a
court, upon finding a violation of § 605(a), to grant an injunction on such terms as it
deems just to restrain future violations. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(i). However, to be
entitled to a permanent injunction, DIRECTV must show: (1) that it has suffered an
irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the
public interest would not disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay, Inc. v.
MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). DIRECTV has failed to make such a showing.
After all, DIRECTV’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is premised on the adequate
legal remedy provided by § 605(e)(3)(A). Thus, no equitable remedy is warranted.5
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC’s
claims against Defendant Brittany Fields are voluntarily dismissed without prejudice;
Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 36)
against Defendants James Fields, d/b/a Fields Cablevision; Walkertown Cable Services,
LLC; and Daniel Boone Motor Inn, Inc. is GRANTED as to liability under § 605(a) of the
Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #
36) against Defendant Altro T.V. Co., Inc. is construed as a Motion for Default Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, and so construed is GRANTED;
With respect to damages, an evidentiary hearing is scheduled for
Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in London, Kentucky; and
The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the Defendants at the following addresses:
102 N. Engle Street
P.O. Box 237
Combs, KY 41729
Walkertown Cable Services, LLC
102 Engle Street
P.O. Box 237
Combs, KY 41729
Additionally, a permanent injunction is not needed given that Defendants’ “last known
DIRECTV account was terminated” in June 2015. (Doc. # 36 at 2).
Daniel Boone Motor Inn, Inc.
90 Boone Ridge
Hazard, KY 41701
Alto T.V. Co., Inc.
124 Charles Back Drive
Whick, KY 41390
This 2nd day of October, 2017.
K:\DATA\Opinions\London\15-93 MOO re MSJ.docx
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?