DIRECTV, Inc. v. Adrian
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2004 WL 1146122 (2004)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
DIRECTV, Inc., (Directv) (plaintiff) sued Ozie Lewis, Ken Vanderploeg, Robert Adrian, and others (defendants) for illegally pirating Directv’s signals without paying, through the use of Private Access Devices. Defendants Lewis and Vanderploeg filed motions to dismiss or sever for improper joinder. Lewis and Vanderploeg argued that Directv had not met the requirements for permissive party joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), which requires that for a plaintiff to permissively join multiple parties, the plaintiff must assert (1) a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence and (2) a common question of law or fact common to all defendants. Lewis and Vanderploeg specifically argued that Directv’s allegations against the defendants involved actions taken by different people on separate occasions under different circumstances, and there was no allegation that any defendants acted in concert with each other. Directv argued that it had met the requirements of Rule 20(a) because the defendants were linked by their purchases of Private Access Devices and that Directv would present similar evidence against each defendant. Directv also contended that the permissive-joinder rules should be interpreted broadly to foster judicial economy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Plunkett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
