DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hamilton

215 F.R.D. 460, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7743, 2003 WL 21047588
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 6, 2003
DocketNo. 02 Civ. 3518(VM)
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 215 F.R.D. 460 (DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hamilton, 215 F.R.D. 460, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7743, 2003 WL 21047588 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) brought this action alleging theft or satellite transmission in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. A default judgment was entered against defendants Denise Hamilton and Majmud Salej on September 23, 2002 by the Honorable Allen G. Schwartz, who then referred the matter to Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis for a report and recommendation concerning the amount of damages to be awarded plaintiff, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. DIRECTV filed a timely written inquest submission. Defendant Salej (“Salej”) failed to respond; defendant Hamilton (“Hamilton”) responded by letter.

Magistrate Judge Yanthis issued a Report and Recommendation dated April 23, 2003 (the “Report”) recommending to this Court, to which the case was subsequently reassigned, that it: (1) award DIRECTV damages against Salej in the amount of $2,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,500.00, and (2) vacate the default judgment against Hamilton. The Report is attached and incorporated hereto. The Court, has received no objections or other responses from any of the parties.

The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Yanthis’s findings and conclusions with respect to DIRECTV’S specific claims for damages against each defendant. In examining the materials on the record pertinent to DIRECTV’s claims, the Court is satisfied that Magistrate Judge Yanthis’s findings and reasoning, as well as the authorities cited in support of the entry of judgment against Salej in the amounts recommended, as well as the vacatur of the default judgment entered against Hamilton, are sufficient to sustain the conclusions set forth in the Report. Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Report in its entirety.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued herein by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on April 23, 2003 is adopted; and it is further

ORDERED that in accordance with the default judgment entered against defendant Majmud Salej on September 23, 2002, further judgment be entered against Salej in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00), plus attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00); and it is further

ORDERED that the default judgment entered on September 23, 2002 against defendant Denise Hamilton is vacated in accordance with Fed. R. Ci. P. 55(c) and 60(b); and it is finally

ORDERED that DIRECTV and Hamilton appear at a conference with the Court on May 16, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the status of the case and scheduling of pretrial proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

YANTHIS, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) brought this action alleging theft of satellite transmissions in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. On September 23, 2002, the Honorable Allen G. Schwartz entered a default judgment against defendants Denise Hamilton and Majmud Salej. On September 24, 2002, Judge Schwartz referred [462]*462this matter to the undersigned to report and recommend the amount of damages to be awarded plaintiff, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff, in response to my direction, filed a timely written inquest submission. Defendant Salej failed to respond; defendant Hamilton responded by letter. For the reasons that follow, I respectfully recommend that Your Honor (1) award plaintiff damages against defendant Majmud Salej in the amount of $2,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,500.00 and (2) vacate the default judgment against defendant Denise Hamilton.

BACKGROUND

The facts pertinent to determination of this motion are set forth in the Complaint, in the Clerk’s Certificate of Default and in the affidavits, affirmations and exhibits submitted by plaintiff.

DIRECTV provides satellite television programming to homes and businesses throughout the United States on a subscription and pay-per-view basis. Each customer is required to purchase a DIRECTV Access Card and other system hardware. In order to protect its satellite transmissions from theft and unauthorized reception, DIRECTV encrypts or “scrambles” the signals to all programming which a subscriber has not purchased.

DIRECTV alleges that defendants Salej and Hamilton purchased and used illegally modified DIRECTV Access Cards and other devices (“Pirate Access Devices”) that are designed to permit viewing of DIRECTV’s television programming without authorization by or payment to DIRECTV. Specifically, DIRECTV alleges that (1) on or about February 13, 2001, defendant Salej purchased two Pirate Access Devices from DSS-Stuff and (2) on or about March 8, 2001, defendant Hamilton purchased a Pirate Access Device from Vector Technologies. DIRECTV learned of these transactions upon inspection of Vector Technologies’ and DSS-Stuffs business records which were seized pursuant to Writs of Seizure executed on May 25, 2001.

DISCUSSION

A. Majmud Salej

Defendant Majmud Salej has failed to appear or defend in this action and has been adjudged in default. Once a default judgment is entered, a defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability. See Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 854 (2d Cir.1995). However, “[w]hile a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation.” Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.1974). In determining damages not susceptible to simple mathematical calculation, a court has the discretion to rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. See Action S.A v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc., 951 F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1006, 112 S.Ct. 1763, 118 L.Ed.2d 425 (1992) (internal citation omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Moreover, the moving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence it offers. See Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic
S.D. New York, 2023
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ribeiro
562 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Directv, Inc. v. Agee
405 F. Supp. 2d 6 (District of Columbia, 2005)
DirecTV v. Haskell
344 F. Supp. 2d 761 (D. Maine, 2004)
DirecTV, Inc. v. Montes
338 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D. Connecticut, 2004)
DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh
318 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (M.D. Alabama, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 F.R.D. 460, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7743, 2003 WL 21047588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/directv-inc-v-hamilton-nysd-2003.