Cases

USCA4 Appeal: 16-1920 Doc: 96 Filed: 03/28/2018 Pg: 1 of 30 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1920 SKY CABLE, LLC; ROBERT SAYLOR, Plaintiffs, and MASSANUTTEN RESORT, LC; GREAT EASTERN RESORT C

USCA4 Appeal: 16-1943 Doc: 81 Filed: 03/28/2018 Pg: 1 of 30 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1920 SKY CABLE, LLC; ROBERT SAYLOR, Plaintiffs, and MASSANUTTEN RESORT, LC; GREAT EASTERN RESORT C

USCA4 Appeal: 16-1946 Doc: 74 Filed: 03/28/2018 Pg: 1 of 30 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1920 SKY CABLE, LLC; ROBERT SAYLOR, Plaintiffs, and MASSANUTTEN RESORT, LC; GREAT EASTERN RESORT C

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge: In 2013, the district court held Randy Coley (Mr. Coley) liable for conducting a fraudulent scheme involving the unauthorized transmission of television programming provided by DIRECTV, LLC (DIRECTV). The court entered judgment against Mr. Coley in the amount of over $2.3 million. After an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy its judgment against Mr. C

BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Twenty-six technicians objected to their employer’s new, exacting compensation terms. When them employer refused to relent, they pitched their story to a local news station’s consumer watchdog reporter. These employees then appeared on television in an effort to curry public sympathy for their demands. So far, no problem. The NLRA has

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEREMY REVITCH, on behalf of No. 18-16823 himself and all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:18-cv-01127- JCS v. DIRECTV, LLC, OPINION Defen

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE *998I. Introduction This case was filed in early 2016 and has now reached summary judgment. The individual Plaintiffs are scheduled for trials that span from November 2017 and into December 2017. DirecTV has claimed for years that the Installers it hires through Contractin

NO. 5-05-0394 N O T IC E Decision filed 03/18/08. The text of IN THE this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the filing of a APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS P e t i ti o n for Re hea ring or the disposition of the same. FIFTH DISTRICT

JUSTICE DONOVAN delivered the opinion of the court: The defendant, DirecTV Inc. (DirecTV), appeals from an order of the circuit court of St. Clair County denying its motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. DirecTV argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and subs

ORDER PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This cause comes before the Court on the following: 1. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 11), filed May 5, 2016; 2. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 15), filed June 6, 2016; 3. Def

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: DIRECTV, Inc. (“DTV”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on its claims for illegal interception of its satellite transmissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(l)(a), and for modification and assembly of pirate access devices in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). We affirm as to the interception c

350 F.Supp.2d 1048 (2004) DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. John WRIGHT, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 1:04CV0242RWS. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. December 14, 2004. *1049 Robin L. Gentry, Needle & Rosenberg, Atlanta, GA, Mark Edwin Henderson, David C. Holloway, Russell Adam Korn, Michael I. Krause, Jerry

318 F.Supp.2d 1113 (2004) DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. Chad BAKER, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:03cv1085-T. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. May 19, 2004. *1114 Sara Anne Ford, William Owens Lewis Hutchinson, Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Mary Brunson Wha

334 F.Supp.2d 1058 (2004) DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. Dale OSTROWSKI and William R. Ostrowski, Defendants. No. 03 C 8618. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 12, 2004. *1059 Paul Alan Rettberg, Timothy R. Rabel, Anne M. Belanger, Ernie Burden, Adam C. Toosley, Brandon K. Lemley, Querrey & Harro

296 F.Supp.2d 937 (2003) DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. Robert BEECHER, et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., Plaintiff, v. David Cashe, et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Johnnie Dixon, et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Kevin Hall, et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Danny Hubbard, et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Ted A. Wooley, et al

269 F.Supp.2d 688 (2003) DIRECTV, INC. Plaintiff, v. Tony AMATO, Defendant. No. CIV. 3:03CV355. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. June 20, 2003. Paul Granville Watson, IV, Sandra Kay Snead, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff. Michael Joseph Kelly, Kelly & Kelly PLC, Bouldres II, Richmond, VA, for Defendant.

333 F.Supp.2d 440 (2004) DIRECTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. James Gregory BENSON, Daniel O. Cabeen, Larry Freeze, Marvin Howell, Jason Long, and R. Glenn Snider, Jr., Defendants. No. 1:03CV1132. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. August 18, 2004. *441 Stephen C. Keadey, Ellis & Winters, LLP, Leslie C. O'Toole, Ralei

94 F.Supp.2d 190 (1999) GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, INC., et al., Defendants. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Counterclaimants, v. General Electric Capital Corporation, Counter-Defendant. Civ. No. 3:97CV1901(PCD). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. December 20, 1999. *191

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0256p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 24-3609 ┐ QUALITEE MOSHI, Administrator of the Estate on │ behalf of Matthew P. Moshi,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CAROLINE M. CRAVEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The above-referenced case was referred to -the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court are Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 46), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 51), and Plaintiffs,re-piy (Dkt.' No. 56).1