DIRECTV, LLC v. SPINA et al
Plaintiff: DIRECTV, LLC
Defendant: MARTINSVILLE CORRAL, INC., VICTOR A SPINA and WILLIAM SPINA
Case Number: 1:2015cv00104
Filed: January 26, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Cable/Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 157 ORDER - The Court DENIES Defendants' 119 Motion for Reconsideration. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/4/2017. (GSO)
August 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ORDER - The Court DENIES Defendants' 103 Motion for Sanctions, finding that neither DirecTV nor its counsel engaged in any sanctionable conduct relating to the second deposition of DirecTV's Rule 30(b)(6) witness. The Court GRANTS IN PART DirecTV's 79 Motion for Summary Judgment, to the extent that it finds that MCI is liable as a matter of law for violating § 605. The Court DENIES IN PART DirecTV's 79 Motion for Summary Judgment, to the extent that it finds that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on DirecTV's vicarious liability claim against Victor Spina and William Spina under § 605. The Court DENIES IN ITS ENTIRETY Defendants' 106 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/30/2016. (GSO)
June 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 101 ORDER - The Court OVERRULES Defendants' 97 Objection to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions to the extent that it ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's 88 Report and Recommendation except for the basis for sanctions, which the Court finds are more properly imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) rather than the Court's inherent power. The Court GRANTS DirecTV's 56 Motion to Strike and for Sanctions to the extent that abse nt an agreement by the parties to use portions of Mr. Spencer's deposition, Mr. Spencer's deposition is STRICKEN. The Court also GRANTS DirecTV's 56 Motion to Strike and for Sanctions to the extent that it finds DirecTV is entitle d to its fees and costs in connection with the motion. The Court ORDERS that, within 14 days of the date of this Order, DirecTV shall either submit a Fee Petition, or shall file a Report advising that it is only seeking the fees and costs set fort h in the Declaration of Attorney Christopher J. Hufnagel, [Filing No. 56-1]. Defendants shall have 7 days from the date of DirecTV's filing of a Fee Petition or Report to respond. No reply is necessary. The Court OVERRULES MCI's 98 Obj ection and Motion for Reconsideration of Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's 89 Report and Recommendation in full. The Court GRANTS DirecTV's 68 Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE MCI's breach of contract counter-claim. As set forth in the Court's January 7, 2016 Order, the deadline for Defendants to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, and to file a response to DirecTV's Motion for Summary Judgment, is 30 days from the date of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/3/2016. (GSO)
August 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER ADOPTING 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Magistrate Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation on two pending motions to dismiss. Defendants Victor and William Spinas' motion to dismiss [Filing Nos. 15, 35] be granted in part and denied in part, such that DirecTV's conversion claim should be dismissed and the interception claim should proceed forward. As to DirecTV's motion to dismiss MCI's counterclaims [Filing No. 22] the Magistrate Judge recomme nded that the motion should be granted. MCI's tortious interference with business relationship and abuse of process claims should be dismissed with prejudice. MCI's breach of contract claim should be dismissed without prejudice. The partie s were afforded due opportunity pursuant to statute and the rules of this Court to file objections; none were filed. The Court, having considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/27/2015. (BGT)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: DIRECTV, LLC v. SPINA et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DIRECTV, LLC
Represented By: Julie Cohen Lonstein
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MARTINSVILLE CORRAL, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: VICTOR A SPINA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: WILLIAM SPINA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?