Injunction Entered Against Satellite Transmission Pirating

preliminary injunction. the denial appears to have been television signals even where devices might have lawful 8 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 (reversing summary judgment for defendant and citing disconnect forms offered by defendants themselves. completely excluded rmg from their buildings after sion of russian-language programming to the subject tinuing and persistent violations" of law); accord, p. 65(d). but the injunction must also be broad enough pany's conduct. given the defendants' pattern of miscon- has caused no one--not the district judge, not us, not mine whether the injunction should be modified.2 denied any wrongdoing and instead offered inconsistent, retained new attorneys, harmelech conceded that he receivers, and he claimed falsely that he was powerless injure the plaintiff. see 720 ill. comp. stat. � 5/16-21. june 30, 2006, defendant harmelech and his companies gency" motion to modify the injunction. the motion was satellite receiver to the property's master antenna system, (continued...) were introduced into evidence not by rmg but by the duct and the record of dishonesty in the district court, evidence, the district judge was aware of that possibility. just as a fence can sell stolen watches for less than a almost all of the receivers were still connected. faced sufficient opportunity to challenge that evidence. these wrongdoing, but broad enough to be effective. russian network (tvr). that lawsuit was settled on dishnetwork's programming in 2006 into one set of appeals from the united states district court vi. contempt tion remains in effect pending any possible modification. harmelech testified first that cable america merely i. background until after they had appealed the preliminary injunction, consider whether rmg could also prevail under the icfa response to rmg's request for contempt of court ceded that they were violating the injunction, they had denial of their motion to modify the preliminary injunc- lineback v. spurlino materials, llc, 546 f.3d 491, 506 (7th unlawful conduct would not effectively protect the plain- app. 2008) (res judicata did not apply when second without prejudice, so the defendants remain free to file a new from the beginning of the preliminary injunction modifying or vacating the injunction while it is pending "in any like manner"). the district court may even offer relief where one competitor breaks the law (as by stealing judge was not available, the defendants filed an "emer- and nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 13 alone. the district court found it "unnecessary to (7th cir. 1998) (civil contempt order to pay a sum that had the defendants suggest in response that other evi- sustaining rmg's claim, the district judge did not abuse in the ("the doctrine of res judicata does not bar claims for tion. we affirm in both cases. 700 (7th cir. 2009), quoting curtis v. timberlake, 436 f.3d utes. one of those claims, in turn, could well have been events after the issuance of the preliminary injunction no matter how similar the defendant's misconduct. see against rmg's legitimate business. the district court 1995) (affirming scope of injunction). away from rmg because of the lower fee. business. that evidence included summaries of the cable america, inc.; defendants' owners, officers, directors, court relied only on the illinois cable piracy act, which connect any receivers they had set up to distribute the injunction as he did. was in fact in control of usa satellite, but he claimed authorized by the content owners. the district judge incredible, and false explanations for his and his com- ment the acts that are prohibited or required. fed. r. civ. this level of deception and obstinacy makes the district harmelech and cable america appealed the injunction declined to consider rmg's other legal theories. after in illinois, res judicata applies if two claims "arise from a single group of operative facts, regardless of whether defendants' objections are essentially evidentiary. they because of a 2001 settlement between the parties in an injunction is left to the district court's sound discretion. suasive and completely lacking in credibility." induce customers to shift their business from a legitimate they assert different theories of relief." river park, inc. v. tion, 456 f.3d 734, 741 (7th cir. 2006). order because lawbreakers "must expect some fencing in"); the orders of the district court in both appeals are even in the absence of a statutory claim, the common law of3 tiff's rights against future encroachment. see ftc v. nat'l agents, employees, successors, and assigns; and any indiv- deceptive trade practices act, deals with trademark motion to modify with the district court. the existing injunc- harmed as a result.' " best v. city of portland, 554 f.3d 698, even if there were some danger of deception in rmg's the defendants cannot fit their theft of tvr's program- neither the assigned judge nor the emergency motions more than two months as they evaded the court's order. had followed up with former subscribers after mailing with them, and the doctrine reaches both claims that cbocs west, inc., 474 f.3d 387, 391 (7th cir. 2007), aff'd, 553 pirating russian-language programming owned by tv business because of the defendants' unfair competition, with this obstinate refusal to comply with the business model, at least for the last several years, has nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 9 the district court's factual findings, which defendants emption defense in a timely manner, it would be inap- "aggrieved party" under the illinois cable piracy act and extensive evidence of the defendants' misconduct, we in 2001, rmg sued cable america in illinois state court began pirating russian-language programming from harmelech and the other defendants from distributing enforce the agreement. that harmelech pirated russian-language satellite televi- dant's conduct has demonstrated that prohibiting only america set up this scam. rmg receives $39.99 a month 4 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 tion of devices that could be used to pirate cable russian television in those properties.1 it is therefore ordered that defendants shai harmelech; separately, at some point before rmg filed this suit on broad rings hollow. the evidence shows that harmelech's defense applied and in that case could and would have sion programming to enable him to compete unfairly charged for maintenance services that it provided in the business model allowed cable america to compete been quite simply to steal television programming and discovery for the preliminary injunction hearing and even claim that has already been resolved in another disconnect forms, testimony that building owners had dant's answer, but `a delay in asserting an affirmative been falsified, he would "entertain a motion to strike many other customers having to pay directv or conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre- for unlawful conduct has been shown." see mccomb v. of modus operandi and the identity of the competitor- hamilton, circuit judge. for nearly ten years, plaintiff is a separate legal entity and a non-party to this case." to disconnect their receivers and stop operations at the russian media group, llc, conduct in order to prevent the evasion of the core pro- cause the district court might have approached the the defendant in, forbidding lawful as well as unlawful the programming by fraud, incurred fewer costs and in which failure to present a ground to the district court on november 10, 2009, while this appeal was pending, the2 disconnect the russian television service" because "usa and proved events that had not yet occurred at the time because it was based on the allegedly falsified forms. but from each person subscribing to its russian programming gally. harmelech and his companies appeal both the court that issued the injunction. that court is in the to this court on march 2, 2009, but they did not comply transmit it to subscribers. cable america, by obtaining the basis for a valid injunction even if the copyright would bar one based on the latter. res judicata does not companies. at each of the twenty properties at issue jurisdiction to modify an injunction that was already rmg filed this suit against harmelech and cable amer- dishnetwork. instead, russian-speaking customers in orders. fied in defense of himself and cable america. (at the even exist at the time of the 2001 suit. see city of enjoined and restrained from distributing, transmitting, basis of that defense. hearing, he said he was open to evidence of "deceptive television signals, affirming injunction against distribu- causation based on the timing of rmg's lost subscrip- ica on june 30, 2006. after discovery had proceeded and tempt finding. see united states v. torres, 142 f.3d 962, 970 been concealing harmelech's control of usa satellite for order relied on rmg's illinois cable piracy act claim not yet imposed the specific sanctions that would be preclude a suit arising from a completely different event, subject properties, the defendants refused to do so. then dence--documents summarizing rmg's lost business some but not all of the buildings covered by the 2001 concluding that the illinois cable piracy act was suf- operative facts. certainly there are similarities in terms subject properties that distribute or transmit russian- wrote that harmelech's contradictory explanations for for misuse and damage of rmg's equipment and for united states court of appeals alleged three separate theories of liability, the district district court properly rejected the res judicata defense. defendants themselves. rmg had produced them in 349 u.s. 322 (1955). in this suit, plaintiff rmg alleged why it issued, state its terms specifically, and describe nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 5 in reasonable detail without referring to any other docu- actor to be held liable, he must interfere "improperly"); � 767, confirm the district judge's belief that a broad injunction time of the hearing, defendant usa satellite & cable, inc. time in their motion to stay the preliminary injunction on cable america, inc. shall disconnect any receivers in the large numbers of lost subscribers based on the original lawsuit."), citing lawlor v. national screen service corp., preemption. the emergency judge denied the motion to district court denied the defendants' motion to clarify the any evidence that's derivative of these documents." whether the competitor employs "wrongful means" such as of the violation sought to be remedied"), vacated on was pirating, and shared none of the fees it collected affirmative defense upon which the defendant bears the included a few of the forms in its binder of potential illinois state court. this diversity suit is barred only if it 709, 711 (7th cir. 2005). we leave it to the district court summary judgment and motion to dismiss, rmg fraudulent misrepresentation is critical to tort issue); see modify for three reasons: it was untimely, it was not a could take the position that he could not force usa to settlement. any system that distributes or transmits russian-language best position to conduct the fact-finding needed to deter- the forms that rmg supposedly took pains to falsify relevant restatement sections). russian media group, llc has battled in court with fraud against consumers. the third, the illinois uniform judge considered or ruled on the preemption issue. be- issue a broad injunction in cases where "a proclivity suit was brought pursuant to an ordinance that did not the appellee--any harm of which the law ought to take found rmg's complaints justified and enjoined was needed. after the district court ordered defendants authorizing rmg itself to disconnect the defendants' to be effective, and the appropriate scope of the generally dowd & dowd, ltd. v. gleason, 693 n.e.2d 358, 371 (ill. "has committed some impropriety in doing so"); la rocco v. based. the defendants raised this defense for the first it is further ordered that defendants shai harmelech and uals or entities controlled by defendants or in active the intended effect. apartment houses where they had been operating ille- the injunction reads in full:1 through his new attorneys that he had "believed that he the defendants also contend that this entire lawsuit is dence that defendants' misconduct had hurt rmg's that injunction barring violations of fair labor standards cable america's arrival, and circumstantial evidence of 2 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 tion to resell the programming for cable america's benefit. waived the preemption defense by not raising it until before the hearing, harmelech had falsely denied that he the defendants introduced the forms into evidence jewelry store charges for legitimate goods, this dishonest injunction is too broad because it enjoins any transmis- moved for a preliminary injunction on march 7, 2008. in a until after defendants offered them. requested preliminary injunction. although rmg had after the preliminary injunction was issued. on the theory that federal copyright law preempts the moreover, rmg introduced a great deal of other evi- or the iudtpa." if the defendants had raised their copy- 10 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 that the theft of a victim's car in 2001 and theft of the that cable america distributed the programming itself, preliminary injunction, but at the june 28, 2008 hearing, he misrepresentation, may be critical to tort claim), and � 768 and uses); sasnett v. sullivan, 91 f.3d 1018, 1021 (7th cir. 1996) pocketed a larger portion of its monthly fee than rmg city of highland park, 703 n.e.2d 883, 893 (ill. 1998). that in this case, defendant cable america, inc. connected an before flaum, rovner, and hamilton, circuit judges. were actually asserted in an earlier lawsuit and those directv and dishnetwork. this new scheme involved 3-10-10 enjoin certain otherwise lawful conduct when the defen- see pepsico, inc. v. redmond, 54 f.3d 1262, 1272 (7th cir. business. see restatement (second) of torts � 766b (1979) (for infringement and passing-off. the preliminary injunction general instrument corp. of delaware v. nu-tek electronics & july 31, 2001, with the court retaining jurisdiction to those properties paid cable america a monthly fee of piracy act, targets only theft of and interference with intervenor-defendant-appellant. propriate for this court to vacate the injunction on the controlled usa satellite, a lie that was discovered later.) burden of proof, village of depue v. exxon mobil corp., concert or participation with defendants. was not a party to the suit. in his deposition testimony nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 11 are maintained by defendants shai harmelech; cable the court had denied cable america's motion for programming to residential customers. rmg competes (...continued)1 that could have been asserted but were not. see aaron v. injunction, the district court finally issued another order a preliminary injunction order must state the reasons would be barred under illinois law. see 28 u.s.c. � 1738; test is not met here because the claims resolved in the nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 15 mfg., inc., 197 f.3d 83, 89-91 (3d cir. 1999) (where defen- and the testimony of an rmg witness--was tainted june 26, 2008 hearing on the motion for preliminary note." amcast industrial corp. v. detrex corp., 2 f.3d 746, 12 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 that programming and maintaining the hardware to to comply with the injunction. after the defendants if the interests of justice require it, but it will be a "rare case 2001 suit arose from a set of operative facts different that only the chicago office's copies had the additional individual subscriber's directv- or dishnetwork-issued tions. given the abundance of independent evidence customer pretend that he or she was merely an individ- allows an "aggrieved" party to sue those who pirate iduals and entities controlled by defendants or in active two months later, on a day when the assigned district same victim's car in 2006 constitute only one set of opera- victim. but the defendants' argument is akin to saying citizens group v. united states department of transporta- to take the steps needed to ensure compliance with its under three illinois statutes. the first, the illinois cable no. 1:06-cv-03578--john w. darrah, judge. objections are without merit. dant had shown persistent pattern of pirating cable usa satellite. by the time the defendants finally con- exist at the time of the first suit). case very differently if defendants had raised their pre- nect the illegally configured receivers. further, in his 749-50 (7th cir. 1993). allowing cable america to distribute russian-language tortious interference with business relationships may also information obtained by telephone indicating that the hibition in the decree and to extirpate any lingering effects for the northern district of illinois, eastern division. attacking the injunction from a third direction, the comment e (in case of alleged interference by competitor, based in part on a new defense of federal copyright concert or participation with defendants are preliminarily may 26, 2009, three years after the lawsuit was filed. sumer fraud act, is a broader statute targeting to terminate business relationship must show that defendant the defendants argue next that the injunction is invalid practice." judge darrah further made clear that if the that an injunction or other equitable decree may fence finding that cable america had violated the cable defendants argue that rmg failed to prove that it is an of the 2001 suit and violations of a statute that did not be proven and the issue is only a question of law. affirma- jacksonville paper co., 336 u.s. 187, 192 (1949) (finding an injunction on the basis of a defense that the district (recognizing "the familiar principle of equitable remedies defense waives the defense only if the plaintiff was agents, employees, successors, and assigns; and all individ- lawsuit between the same parties or those in privity court are normally forfeited on appeal. see humphries v. television programming to any of the tenants residing in causing the distribution or transmission of, or maintaining preclusion or res judicata bars a party from asserting a relied on this evidence in concluding that rmg had lost nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 3 usa satellite intervened as a defendant in may 2009. bakwin, 439 n.e.2d 537, 542-43 (ill. app. 1982) (reinhard, j.) subject properties. later, he changed course and admitted compete legally for business in the twenty subject proper- act was justified based on defendant's "record of con- and pointed out the discrepancies between the two mahl, 550 f.3d 659, 664 (7th cir. 2008); highway j the defendants' objection that this injunction is too 6 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 defendants-appellants, not yet been determined by district court was not all distribution and transmission of russian-language pending before the court of appeals. the defendants ii. the scope of the injunction defendants could show that the disconnect forms had language television programming that were installed or sanctions, harmelech claimed falsely that it was usa marrese v. american academy of orthopaedic surgeons, 470 america, inc.; defendants' owners, officers, directors, his discretion by cutting off further challenges to the illinois cable piracy act on which the injunction is their admission or question any witness about them the defendants first contend that the district court's 537 f.3d 775, 786 (7th cir. 2008), and presumably the comment c (use of "wrongful means," including fraudulent russian-language television programs to twenty specific u.s. 373, 380 (1985). in general, the doctrine of claim injunction, rmg presented evidence that it was likely to ficient to support the injunction, the district court then to resell it at a discount. harmelech has now tive defenses "must ordinarily be included in the defen- do not reach the validity of the contempt order. in with the injunction. to begin with, they did not discon- ual subscriber, and then using that customer's subscrip- v. res judicata or claim preclusion tive facts, so that a lawsuit based on the earlier theft in civil litigation, issues not presented to the district originals of the disconnect forms to its home office, so unfairly against rmg, which also sells russian-language programming throughout the building without the other grounds, 521 u.s. 1114 (1997). for the seventh circuit could. it also induced rmg's subscribers to switch $25 to $30. cable america kept this arrangement secret do not contest, were unfavorable to harmelech and his by trying to blame usa satellite, all the while sticking continuing conduct complained of in the second lawsuit preliminary injunction and an emergency motions judge's on appeal. it is not appropriate for this court to overturn forms that reported why subscribers ended their relation- burden of persuasion, even if no additional facts must the defendants did not raise the preemption defense ties, they should seek a modification from the district nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 17 argued january 14, 2010--decided march 10, 2010 affirmed. gone on to consider the claims under the other two stat- d'last corp. v. ugent, 681 n.e.2d 12, 17 (ill. app. 1997) the subject properties. admitted the unlawful conduct that gave rise to the cable america's conduct were "unsupported and con- 1998) (noting that plaintiff alleging tortious inducement of client ming in many of the same buildings where cable tion in writing the injunction as it did: targeted at the properties, including legal transmissions. in light of the cir. 2008) (affirming injunction against specified viola- and the district court has rightly refused to consider if the defendants can show that they have a plan to the district judge did not abuse his discretion in framing future proceedings, the district court should not hesitate 14 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 in particular, the district court has the discretion to copies, but they did not move to strike. rmg, meanwhile, to harmelech's false story that he had no control over defrauding directv and dishnetwork by having one that occur after judgment has been entered in the first we express no opinion on whether the preemption from directv and dishnetwork, whose signals it trary to the evidence," and that his testimony was "unper- from those that support the claims in this suit. the piracy act and that rmg was an aggrieved party, the tions of labor laws and against actions violating the law defense is preserved for further proceedings in the v. iii. federal copyright preemption court had no opportunity to consider. satellite, not cable america, that controlled the the communications services of others and thereby defendant shai harmelech and his companies, charging they tried to conceal that refusal from the district court nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 7 defendants have also asked us to vacate the district after that, on may 11, 2009, rmg complained that right preemption defense before the district court issued this is not such a rare case. rmg sued the defendants district court, they argue, improperly admitted and 16 nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 communications services. the second, the illinois con- the merchandise or pirating the programming) to enable it to with those providers. in essence, cable america was on february 19, 2009, the district court issued the genuine emergency motion, and the district court lacked appealable). because we uphold the injunction, we barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion or res judicata ship with rmg to make it look as if those subscribers nos. 09-1554 & 09-2903 left rmg because of defendants' misconduct. the iv. rmg's status as an "aggrieved party" explanation for the discrepancy: rmg's chicago office therefore should be unable to sue under that statute. the television to the twenty subject properties, and to dis- chicago v. midland smelting co., 896 n.e.2d 364, 379 (ill. subscribers had left rmg for cable america. plaintiff-appellee, preemption defense has merit.3 appealed that order on july 28, 2009. district court. we have treated federal preemption as an then compounded this error by not giving the defendants needed to give us appellate jurisdiction over the con- court ordered harmelech and cable america to cease but he claimed falsely that its distribution was to decide whether the defendants have permanently succeed on its claim under the illinois cable piracy act. downright prescient. contend that rmg deliberately falsified some business court's finding of contempt, though the district court has package, but it must pay the costs of legally obtaining elicited from its witness a plausible and uncontradicted lead co., 352 u.s. 419, 428-30 (1957) (affirming broad ftc the district court then held harmelech and cable exhibits for the hearing, but rmg did not move for america in contempt on may 5, 2009, but even six days u.s. 442 (2008). we may consider a forfeited argument receivers so that the preliminary injunction could have with directv and dishnetwork to provide that program- usa satellite & cable, inc., see 720 ill. comp. stat. � 5/16-18 et seq. harmelech testi- cable america, inc. and shai harmelech, court's decision about the scope of the injunction look its injunction, the court might have found that the ming in 2001 and their theft of directv's and