Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 51.9 kB
Pages: 1
Date: September 28, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 363 Words, 2,327 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22795/70.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut ( 51.9 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut
. I . Case 3:03-cv-00007-RNC Document 70 Filed O9/28/2004 qf 1 {
_ _ "_ -
I 1
/6@ UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou1§¥¥F I N
DISTRICT OP CONNECTICUT
ZGSH Jett! 28 F) 1Z?;= I L1
IHRECTVJNC, )
) 15.1}. §X5§_i}Tji_§CT C_?)§.)?iI
Piaiimrr ) 4.;-2 { I-- um. ti.
) [2;?i;;>'*
V' ) Civil Action 3:03C\/0007-RNC
)
)
hMKECARONmaL )
)
Defendant )
p
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(za.), defendant Mike Caron hereby moves for
September 27, 2004. DIRECTV, INC. v. CARON
3:O3CVOOO7 (RNC)
Re: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 33]
Granted in part. Summary judgment is granted as to count three because
18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) does not create a private right of action for mere
possession of a device in violation of §2512(1)(b). See Directv, Inc. v.
Treworgy, 373 F.3d 1124, 1125 (llth Cir. 2004); Directv, Inc. v. Lewis, No.
03—CV—6241CJS(F) 2004 WL 941805, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2004). Summary
judgment is granted as to count five because, until such time as the
Connecticut Supreme Court or Appellate Court rules differently, a federal
trial court must apply the traditional rule that intangible property /
interests are not subject to conversion under Connecticut law. See Hi—Ho
Tower, Inc. v. Com~Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 44 (2000). Summary judgment
is denied as to counts one, two and four because the evidence of
plaintiff’s possession of pirating devices and the hardware needed to
operate them, viewed in light of the timing of the cessation and resumption
of his customer relationship with plaintiff, would permit a reasonable jury
to infer ghatfbe knowingly manufactured, assembled or modified a pirating
device andJoremntercepted plaintiff's satellite signals. Cf. Community
Tel_Yjsion S éj“?Inc. v. Caruso, 134 F. Supp.2d 455, 461 (D. Conn. 2000)
(possessigh ofjpirating device coupled with circumstantial evidence of
` actual usegsufficient to establish claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(A)).
S0 qrderedv {TQ;
- Ein iii * ;
E.._·F;i::r.¢ { N U ,. Z
S ·E I
‘“ Robert N. Chatigny, .S D.J {
I
Ti`T—T—"_ TT`T_T"*;;==#= IlI `
ggggggziEi;Qggiég;{%%%?_h___k`¥*_*;eVQI‘E‘rr—————~——¥L;iii?r
eg; r__ -__ - _
‘iii