Opinion
CASE NUMBER 03 C 3540
September 18, 2003
ORDER
DirecTV, Inc. ("DirecTV") sues Dean Smith ("Smith"), Todd Stites, John Summers, Paul Townsend ("Townsend"), Tracy Tryboski and Dennis Vincent ("Vincent") for satellite piracy in violation of the Cable Communication Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C) (Count I) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) (Count IV) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ("§ 2511") (Count II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2512 ("§ 2512") (Count III) as well as conversion under Illinois common law (Count V). Townsend and Vincent (collectively, "defendants") move to dismiss or sever the claims against them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Alternatively, they move to dismiss Counts III and V pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Defendants may be joined in the same action if: (1) "there is asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;" and (2) "if any questions of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 20. Misjoinder occurs when a plaintiff fails to satisfy either requirement. Bailey v. Northern Trust Co., 196 F.R.D. 513, 515 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 21, the court may dismiss a misjoined party from an action "on such terms as are just."
Defendants' alleged conduct does not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. According to DirecTV, each defendant individually purchased equipment used to intercept DirecTV satellite programming from an unidentified source or sources between March and May 2001. Compl. at ¶ 17. However, DirecTV fails to show any relationship between the defendants or the transactions at issue. Although DirecTV contends the equipment was shipped to defendants from the same facility, DirecTV has not indicated how this is relevant to defendants' alleged misappropriation of its satellite signals. Based on this record, DirecTV fails to establish that defendants are properly joined under Rule 20.
Pursuant to Rule 21, dismissal of all defendants other than the first named defendant is just. The court's docket reveals that DirecTV filed 82 separate actions in this district, including this one, on May 22, 2003. In each form complaint, DirecTV names an average of 6 unrelated defendants. By filing consolidated and not individual cases, DirecTV managed to avoid paying approximately $61,500 in filing fees. Under these circumstances, all defendants except Smith must be dismissed without prejudice. Based on the dismissal, defendants Townsend and Vincent's motions to dismiss Counts III and V and alternative motions to sever are moot.
Finally, Smith has not appeared or filed a responsive pleading to DirecTV's complaint. According to the court's docket, Smith was served on June 18, 2003. As a result, Smith is in technical default pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55.