Opinion
Civ. No. 03-5624 (RHK/AJB).
November 12, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Introduction
Plaintiff DirecTV, Inc. ("DirecTV") alleges that Defendant Anthony Murphy has received and intercepted its satellite transmissions in violation of Federal law. Murphy has moved to dismiss DirecTV's Complaint apparently on the ground that DirecTV has failed to state a cause of action for the alleged violations. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Murphy's Motion in part and deny it in part.
Background
DirecTV is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. DirecTV provides television programming to millions of subscribers in the United States through a direct broadcast satellite system. To provide security and prevent unauthorized viewing of its programming, DirecTV encrypts, or scrambles, its satellite transmissions. Those authorized to view DirecTV programming are required to create an account, obtain a DirecTV Access Card, and purchase other system hardware, including a small satellite dish. Upon activation of the Access Card by DirecTV, the subscribing customer can de-encrypt DirecTV's satellite signal and view its television programming.Despite these security measures, several companies sell modified DirecTV Access Cards and other devices ("Pirate Access Devices") that permit the viewing of DirecTV's programming without authorization by, or payment to, DirecTV. In May 2001, DirecTV executed Writs of Seizure at a mail shipping facility used by White Viper Technologies, which is a source of Pirate Access Devices, and it secured documents showing the sale and purchase of such devices. These records revealed that in April and July 2000 Murphy placed orders with White Viper Technologies through the interstate or foreign wire facilities and purchased one or more Pirate Access Devices. The device or devices were then delivered to Murphy's Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, address via the United States Postal Service or other commercial carriers.
Based on this information, DirecTV filed a three-count Complaint against Murphy. Count I alleges unauthorized reception of satellite signals, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a); Count II alleges unauthorized interception of electronic communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a); and Count III alleges possession of Pirate Access Devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b). Murphy, appearing pro se, has moved to dismiss the Complaint "for failing to state a cause of action [for claims made] under 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b), 18 U.S.C. § 2520, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and Minn. Stat. § 609.80." (Def.'s Mot. and Mem. in Supp. at 1.)
Standard of Review
Under Rule 12(b)(6), all factual allegations must be accepted as true and every reasonable inference must be made in favor of the complainant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); see Midwestern Mach., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 167 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1999); Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 894 (8th Cir. 1994). "[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) serves to eliminate actions which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail, thereby sparing litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity." Young v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A cause of action "should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Analysis
A. 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (Count I)
Giving Murphy's Motion to Dismiss a charitable read, it appears that he argues that DirecTV has no private right of action to enforce violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). In Count I, DirecTV alleges that Murphy "has received and/or assisted others in receiving DIRECTV's satellite transmissions of television programming without authorization, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)." (Compl. ¶ 12.) Section 605(a) provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto." Although § 605(a) is a criminal statute, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(A) provides that "[a]ny person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a) [i.e., § 605(a)] . . . may bring a civil action in a United States district court." Thus, it is clear from the plain language of § 605(e)(3)(A) that Congress intended to allow a private right of action to enforce violations of § 605(a). Courts that have considered this issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1128 (M.D. Ala. 2004); DirecTV, Inc. v. Tasche, 316 F. Supp. 2d 783, 785-86 (E.D. Wis. 2004).
B. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (Count II)
It also appears that Murphy asserts that DirecTV has no private right of action to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). In Count II, DirecTV alleges that by using a Pirate Access Device to decrypt and view its satellite transmissions of television programming, Murphy "intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, or procured other persons to intercept or endeavor to intercept, DIRECTV's satellite transmission of television programming, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)." (Compl. ¶ 16.) Section 2511(1)(a) provides that a person commits a federal offense if he "intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication." Although § 2511(1)(a) is a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) provides that "any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person . . . engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate." This Court has previously held that § 2520(a) provides a private right of action to enforce violations of § 2511(1)(a). See DirecTV, Inc. v. Marinac, Civ. No. 03-4242 (RHK/AJB), 2004 WL 1834578, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2004). Courts that have considered this issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., DirecTV, Inc. v. Treworgy, 373 F.3d 1124, 1127 (11th Cir. 2004); Flowers v. Tandy Corp., 773 F.2d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1985); Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1129; DirecTV, Inc. v. Baker, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1116 (M.D. Ala. 2004); DirecTV, Inc. v. Rosario, No. 03 C 8515, 2004 WL 1510015, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2004). C. 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b) (Count III)
DirecTV has agreed to dismiss its claim under Count III, which alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b). (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n at 1.) This Court has previously determined that no private right of action to enforce § 2512(1)(b) exists and will dismiss Count III with prejudice. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Bertram, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Minn. 2003).
Although Murphy also asserts that there is no private right of action to enforce violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.80 (prohibiting interference with cable communications systems), DirecTV does not allege that Murphy violated that provision.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Anthony Murphy's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART so that:
1. The Motion to Dismiss Count I (unauthorized reception of satellite signals, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)) and Count II (unauthorized interception of electronic communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)) of Plaintiff DirecTV, Inc.'s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and Counts I and II will remain; and
2. The Motion to Dismiss Count III (possession of Pirate Access Devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b)) is GRANTED and Count III is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.