FTA-N-More.Net

Dish Network v. Hart


On July 16, 2008 federal criminal authorities , including personnel from the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed, search warrants at a residence in Paris, Texas, a business in Talihina, Texas, and a business inv Hugo, Oklahoma. From this raid, the federal criminal authorities recovered a significant amount of sales records related to Mr. Charles Groome ("Groome") and his businesses, FTA Electronics and Hugo TV & Computer.

Groome was in the business of selling DISH Network piracy devices; he was selling modified FTA receivers, FTA receivers that had been programmed with modified FTA card hack software.

The sales information obtained through the search warrants executed on Groome was ultimately shared with the Plaintiffs such that Plaintiffs came into possession of copies of records (the "Groome records"). In reliance upon those records and other information, and upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have set forth the allegations in this Complaint.

Specifically, the Groome records indicate that:

The Defendant purchased a Neusat FTA receiver and a SatPro FTA receiver from Groome on or about November 1, 2007. In reliance upon those records and other information, and upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have set forth the allegations in this Complaint.

The Defendant paid Groome $1,470.55 for the two FTA receivers, a price indicative of receivers having been programmed with modified FTA card hack software.

The Defendant had been a paying subscriber of DISH Network but Defendant terminated his account with DISH Network on or about May 12, 2007, shortly after his first device from Groome.



Dish Network, LLC et al v. Hart
Filed: July 16, 2010 as 6:2010cv00253 Updated: July 20, 2010 02:52:28
Plaintiffs: DISH Network, LLC and EchoStar Technologies, LLC
Defendant: Jimmie Hart
Presiding Judge: James H. Payne
Court: Tenth Circuit > Oklahoma > Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes > Cable/Satellite TV

DEFENDANT’S ANWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

(Doc 10)

COMES NOW, the Defendant, JIMMY HART, and files his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed herein and states the following responses to each paragraph:

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

1. Paragraph 1 is denied
2. Paragraph 2 is denied
3. Paragraph 3 is admitted
4. Paragraph 4 is admitted
5. Paragraph 5 is admitted
6. Paragraph 6 is admitted
7. Paragraph 7 is admitted
8. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 8.
9. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 9.
10. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 10.
11. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 11.
12. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 12.
13. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 13.
14. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 14.
15. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 15.
16. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 16.
17. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 17.
18. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 18.
19. Defendant admits that FTA receivers are somewhat similar in appearance to EchoStar Technologies’ receivers. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of Paragraph 19
20. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 20.
21. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 21.
22. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 22.
23. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 23.
24. Defendant admits Paragraph 24
25. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 25.
26. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 26.
27. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 27.
28. Defendant admits Paragraph 28
29. Defendants admit purchasing two receivers from Groom on or about November 1, 2007. Defendants deny the remainder of Paragraph 29.
30. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 30.
31. Defendant admits Paragraph 31
32. Defendant admits Paragraph 32
33. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 33.
34. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 34.
35. Other than those specifically admitted, Defendants deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Paragraphs 1 through 34.
36. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 36.
37. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 37.
38. Defendant denies Paragraph 38
39. Defendant denies Paragraph 39
40. Defendant denies Paragraph 40
41. Other than those specifically admitted, Defendants deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Paragraphs 1 through 40.
42. Defendant denies Paragraph 42
43. Defendant denies Paragraph 43
44. Defendant denies Paragraph 44
45. Defendant denies Paragraph 45
46. Other than those specifically admitted, Defendants deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Paragraphs 1 through 45.
47, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 47.
48. Defendant denies Paragraph 48
49. Defendant denies Paragraph 49
50. Defendant admits that DISH NETWORK and EchoStar Technologies are telecommunications equipment providers. Defendant denies the remainder of Paragraph
51. Other than those specifically admitted, Defendants deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Paragraphs 1 through 51.
52. Defendant denies Paragraph 52
53. Defendant denies Paragraph 53
54. Defendant denies Paragraph 54
55. Defendant denies Paragraph 55
56. Other than those specifically admitted, Defendants deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

DEFENSES

57. The Plaintiff has failed to state a lawful or viable cause of action or claim forrelief under existing Federal Law.
58. Plaintiff’s attempt to assert a claim against Defendant based entirely on sales records is not sufficient to present a valid claim that Defendant intercepted or attempted to intercept DISH NETWORK signals.
59. Defendant never took possession of smart card technology purchased from Groom
60. Although Defendant never took possession of smart card technology, mere possession of smart card technology is not unlawful.
61. Defendants reserve the right to further amend their Answer and assert further defenses throughout discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays that judgment be rendered to him, that Plaintiff’s request for damages be denied, that Defendant be granted all his attorneys fees and costs expended in defense herein, and that the Court grant such other and further relief as is appropriate.




Doc 11: MINUTE ORDER FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT AND SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE





(AZA)

_________________
Information and opinions expressed herein may not reflect those of the poster.

True FTA 39" Motorized Dish