In re Cases Filed by Directv, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 04-00185-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00978-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00967-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00177-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00507-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-01794-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00045-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 04-00509-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00821-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00807-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00808-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00841-PCT (HRH).,No. CV 04-00817-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00180-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-02450-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00182-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00664-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00840-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00853-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00202-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 03-01776-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00968-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-02181-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00813-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00194-PCT (HRH).,No. CV 04-00842-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00835-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-01898-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00816-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00205-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 03-00971-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00665-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00819-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00812-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00204-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 04-00810-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00504-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00999-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00852-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00972-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00856-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00193-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00203-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 03-00989-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00805-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00207-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 03-00977-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00846-PCT (HRH).,No. CV 04-01374-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00502-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-02182-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00850-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00508-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00976-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00184-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00818-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00172-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-1153-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 04-00844-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00815-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00993-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00814-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00982-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-01774-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-01002-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00837-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-02180-PCT (HRH).,No. CV 04-02040-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-02147-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00828-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00505-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00196-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00851-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00181-PCT (HRH).,No. CV 04-00044-TUC (HRH).,No. CV 04-00829-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00854-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00836-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-01899-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00503-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00809-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00832-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 04-00822-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00973-PHX (HRH).,No. CV 03-00981-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00967-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00968-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00971-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00972-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00973-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00976-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00977-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00978-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00981-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00982-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00989-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00993-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-00999-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-01002-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-01774-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-01776-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-01794-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-02147-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-02181-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-02182-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-02450-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00172-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00177-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00180-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00182-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00184-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00185-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00193-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00196-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00502-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00503-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00504-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00505-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00507-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00508-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00509-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00664-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00665-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00805-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00807-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00808-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00809-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00810-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00812-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00813-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00814-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00815-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00816-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00817-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00818-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00819-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00821-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00822-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00828-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00829-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00832-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00835-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00836-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00837-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00840-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00842-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00844-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00850-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00851-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00852-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00853-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00854-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-00856-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-01374-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-01898-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-01899-PHX (HRH).,CV 04-02040-PHX (HRH).,CV 03-02180-PCT (HRH).,CV 04-00181-PCT (HRH).,CV 04-00194-PCT (HRH).,CV 04-00841-PCT (HRH).,CV 04-00846-PCT (HRH).,CV 04-00044-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00045-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-1153-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00202-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00203-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00204-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00205-TUC (HRH).,CV 04-00207-TUC (HRH). |
| Citation | 344 F.Supp.2d 647 |
| Parties | In re CASES FILED BY DIRECTV, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Barbara J. Dawson, Matthew Paul Fischer, III, Melissa Mae Beilke Krueger, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
This Order Pertains to the Following Related Cases:
Motions to Dismiss; Statutes of Limitations Issues
Defendants Michael and Zahecha Redfern move the court to dismiss all of plaintiff DirecTV's claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.
Defendants Michael and Zahecha Redfern were previously named as defendants in a related case, DirecTV, Inc. v. Long, CV 03-0991-PHX (HRH), which was filed on May 23, 2003. On March 4, 2004, Judge Martone entered an order "dismissing all defendants except Defendants Long, without prejudice to newly filed, separate lawsuits against the dismissed defendants."
3On April 26, 2004, plaintiff DirecTV, Inc. ("DirecTV"), filed a complaint against defendants Kevin Talley and Michael and Zahecha Redfern, alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and 18 U.S.C. § 2512.4 The claims all arise out of defendants' alleged illegal use of equipment designed to permit viewing of DirecTV's satellite programming without authorization or payment. The Redferns did not file an answer to DirecTV's complaint. Instead, on June 14, 2004, defendants Redfern filed their motion to dismiss all of DirecTV's claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
This case is one of many civil cases filed by DirecTV in Arizona involving the alleged unlawful interception of satellite programming. These related cases are being jointly managed by the court but are not consolidated. The court has issued several case management orders ("CMO") regarding the jointly managed cases ("JMC").
Case Management Order No. 1 ("CMO-1") stayed motion practice in the JMC.5 In Case Management Order No. 6 ("CMO-6"), filed June 29, 2004,6 the court lifted the stay on motion practice in the 2003 JMC and stayed motion practice in the 2004 JMC, subject to limited exceptions including joinder in motion practice commenced in one of the 2003 JMC. By minute order dated June 29, 2004,7 the court lifted the stay on motion practice in all of the JMC for the limited purpose of entertaining the Redferns' motion to dismiss.
CMO-7, dated August 24, 2004,8 set forth the schedule for disposition of statute of limitations legal issues, and required all JMC defendants wishing to join the Redferns' motion to file notices of joinder by September 15, 2004. CMO-7 further provides:
(4) The foregoing joinders may, if necessary, supplement the Redfern memoranda; but, in so doing, parties are to bear in mind that this joint motion practice is directed only at legal issues, not case-specific, fact issues. There will have to be case-specific determinations of whether or not the statutes of limitations have run in each case; but, as already suggested, the legal principles that underlie such case-specific determinations are likely to be the same in all of the JMC, and will be addressed only once. If joinders in the Redfern motion add substantive, legal arguments beyond those presented by the Redfern motion, plaintiff may serve and file in DirecTV v. Talley, No. CV A04-0829-PHX (HRH), a further response addressing those additional issues no later than September 30, 2004.[9]
Forty-eight defendants10 timely filed notices of joinder, including defendants Mark and Christine Savin who filed a supplemental memorandum11 moving the court to dismiss plaintiff's claims under A.R.S. § 13-3008(A) and request attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-731(A)(c)(4).12
Because the Savins' supplemental memorandum raised legal issues beyond those presented by the Redfern motion, plaintiff had until September 30, 2004, to serve and file a further response addressing those issues pursuant to CMO-6. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Savins' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under A.R.S. §§ 13-3008(A) and 12-731(A).
Although defendants do not cite a legal standard in their motion to dismiss, the applicable legal standard is that of a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. A claim may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) "only if `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). In deciding a motion to dismiss, all material allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Id. "Dismissal is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." Id. (citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988)).
"Dismissal on statute of limitations grounds can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) `only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.'" TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir.1980)).
Defendants move the court to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and 18 U.S.C. § 251213 on the grounds that they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.14 Plaintiff opposes the motion.15
Plaintiff alleges the court must deny defendants' motion to dismiss for three reasons: (1) the filing date for the underlying complaint relates back to the date of the complaint originally filed against defendants in DirecTV v. Long, CV 03-0991-PHX (HRH); (2) the issue of whether the applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled has not been decided; and (3) defendants' motion requires the court to make factual determinations that are left open by DirecTV's complaint. In particular, plaintiff alleges that the accrual date for defendants' violations and the issue of whether defendants' conduct is ongoing are factual issues that must be resolved in discovery.
Without citing any controlling authority, plaintiff alleges that "[a]s a matter of law, the filing date for this complaint relates back to the filing date of the original complaint." 16
"Relation back" is governed by Rule 15(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that, in some circumstances, an amended pleading may relate back for purposes of the statute of limitations to the time when the original pleading was filed. Here, the court does not have an amended complaint before it.
Plaintiff does not cite a single case applying the doctrine of relation back where, as here, a plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court that was dismissed for improper joinder, and then filed a new complaint against the same defendant in the same forum. Instead, plaintiff cites two cases where courts granted motions to sever, specifically stating that the refiled complaints would relate back to the dates of the originally filed complaints. Graziose v. American...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Directv, Inc. v. Rodkey
....... Page 592 . (Document No. 10). Thereafter, on April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff filed the above-captioned civil action against the Defendant. (Document No. 1). Approximately, two months later, on June 4, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an ... when a complete cause or right of action accrues or arises, which occurs as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises." In re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc., 344 F.Supp.2d 647, 654 (D.Ariz.2004) ( quoting 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 81 (1987)). (emphasis added). . ......
-
Dish Network L.L.C. v. Vicxon Corp., Case No. 12–cv–9–L(WVG).
...... being a California company based in Escondido called Sonicview USA, Inc. ( Id. ¶ 28.) “Defendants contracted with Sonicview USA, Inc. to ... [923 F.Supp.2d 1263] “enables a court to hear cases unrelated to the defendant's forum activities[.]” Fields v. Sedgwick ... to borrow a period from the forum state's analogous state law.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir.2008) (citing DelCostello v. ...4:11–5:25.) They direct the Court's attention to the related case filed in July 2009 involving primarily the same infringing devices, and argue ......
-
In re Sia
...... COMPLAINT AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT FILED" ON MAY 11, 2006 . LLOYD KING, Bankruptcy Judge. . \t . \xC2"... Jabour v. CIGNA Healthcare of California, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1121 (C.D.Cal.2001). The rule must be read together ...cases and only if it appears that the "complaint lacks a `cognizable legal ... inferences that may "be drawn from them." In re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc., 344 F.Supp.2d 647, 651 (D.Ariz.2004) (citation omitted). If a ......
-
Directv, Inc. v. Budden
......When DTV finally filed its summary judgment motion on July 21, 2004, it only addressed claims under § 605(e)(4), which suggests that the other claims were abandoned. .... AFFIRMED. . --------------- . . Notes: . 1. We heard oral argument in this case on May 11, 2005, with two related cases, which are also issued today. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson, No. 04-30861, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1870775 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2005); DIRECTV, Inc. v. ......