874 F. Supp. 2d 1010
D. Or.2012Background
- Joe Hand sues under the FCA for displaying UFC 93 at the Porterhouse Restaurant on Jan 17, 2009, asserting it paid for exclusive nationwide distribution rights and sublicensing agreements; defendants are Randy Jacobson and Par III, Inc. (the Restaurant).
- Joe Hand seeks statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, damages under 47 U.S.C. § 553, conversion damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Jacobson is alleged to have involvement as corporate officer; plaintiff claims alter-ego liability; discovery shows Jacobson lists as registered agent, president, and secretary of Par III with no other officers or shareholders.
- Defendants move for summary judgment on (A) piercing the corporate veil/individual liability, (B) timeliness under the FCA/ECPA and Rule 4(m), (C) conversion claim; the court addresses these grounds.
- The court notes Jacobson submitted a declaration denying involvement; plaintiff offered no contrary evidence; the court later allows that a scrivener’s error corrected date did not affect the timeliness analysis.
- The court concludes Jacobson, in his individual capacity, is entitled to summary judgment; otherwise, the motion is denied on other grounds; the court discusses whether the broadcast signal constitutes a cognizable chattel for conversion and leans toward treating it as such.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veil-piercing and Jacobson liability | Hand asserts Jacobson’s control and day-to-day management justify alter-ego liability. | Jacobson denies involvement in showing the UFC event; no evidence of personal participation. | Jacobson granted summary judgment in his individual capacity. |
| Timeliness of FCA claims | Complaint timely under 2-year ECPA-like period; holiday extended deadline. | Claims untimely under Rule 4(m) and limitations; arguments adopted from Kingvision. | Two-year ECPA-like statute applied; filing within period; timeliness not barred. |
| Service extensions under Rule 4(m) | Court extended service deadlines due to good cause; efforts to locate defendants. | Defendants contend no or insufficient good cause. | Court’s extensions for service were proper; no dismissal for lack of service. |
| Conversion viability and definition of chattel | Rights to broadcast signal/licensing can be converted; chattel should include intangible rights. | Chattel typically tangible; pending arguments on whether license rights fit conversion. | Court finds the broadcast signal/license rights can be converted; conversion claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (mere scintilla not enough to prevail at trial)
- In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010) (describes shifting burden on summary judgment)
- Aero Planning Int’l, Inc. v. Air Assoc., Inc., 94 Or.App. 143 (Or. App. 1988) (three-part veil-piercing inquiry (control, improper conduct, causation))
- Chappell v. United States, 270 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1959) (historical compact on conversion of tangible property)
- Becker v. Pacific Forest Industries, Inc., 229 Or.App. 112 (Or. App. 2009) (to-be-considered factors in determining conversion)
- Reynolds v. Schrock, 197 Or.App. 564 (Or. App. 2005) (discusses tangible vs intangible and chattel for conversion)