MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3:09-Cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 2 of 195

3:09-cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 1 of 195 E-FILED Friday, 30 May, 2014 09:49:52 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the STATES OF CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:09-cv-03073-SEM-BGC NORTH CAROLINA, and OHIO, Plaintiffs, v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3:09-cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 2 of 195 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ......................................................................................... 4 Dish Network And Telemarketing .......................................................................................4 Dish’s Robocall Telemarketing .........................................................................................12 Dish’s Compliance Activities ............................................................................................17 Dish’s OE Call Centers ......................................................................................................24 Dish’s First OE Call Center, Dish TV Now ......................................................................32 Dish’s OE Call Center Satellite Systems Network ............................................................39 Dish’s OE Call Center Star Satellite ..................................................................................45 Dish’s OE Call Center American Satellite .........................................................................48 Dish’s OE Call Center JSR Enterprises .............................................................................52 Dish Retailer New Edge Satellite and its Entity-Specific Do-Not-Call List .....................59 Dish’s OE Call Center National Satellite Systems ............................................................60 Consumer Related Facts ....................................................................................................62 Custodial Facts ...................................................................................................................74 Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 77 Counts I – IV: The United States .......................................................................................78 A. The TSR Statutory and Regulatory Framework ........................................78 B. The Undisputed Facts Show That Dish Violated the TSR by Calling Numbers on the Registry and by Causing Its Retailers to Call Numbers on the Registry ....................................................................88 C. There Is No Dispute That Dish Engaged in or Caused Other Telemarketers to Engage in Initiating Outbound Telephone Calls to Persons Who Had Stated That They Did Not Want to Receive Calls in Violation of the TSR...................................................................114 i 3:09-cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 3 of 195 D. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Abandoned or Caused Telemarketers to Abandon Outbound Calls in Violation of the TSR ............................................................................120 E. Dish Violated the TSR by Providing Substantial Assistance and Support to Star Satellite, Knowing Or Consciously Avoiding Knowing That It Was Violating the TSR ................................................131 F. Dish Cannot Be Shielded by the TSR Safe Harbor .................................132 Civil Penalties on Counts I-IV .........................................................................................134 A. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated the TSR With “Actual Knowledge Or Knowledge Fairly Implied on the Basis of Objective Circumstances” That Its Conduct Was Prohibited .................................................................................................134 B. Several Factors Counsel Strongly in Favor of a Sizable Penalty .............138 Injunctive Relief on Counts I-IV .....................................................................................151 Counts V and VI: The States of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio .................................................................................................155 A. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ................................................155 B. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish, Both Directly and Indirectly as a Result of Third Parties Acting on Its Behalf, Violated the TCPA by Engaging in a Pattern or Practice of Initiating Telephone Solicitations to Residential Telephone Subscribers on the Registry .....................................................................160 C. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish, Both Directly and Indirectly as a Result of Third Parties Acting on Its Behalf, Violated the TCPA by Engaging in a Pattern or Practice of Initiating Prerecorded Telephone Solicitations ........................................163 Damages on Counts V And VI ........................................................................................166 Injunctive Relief on Counts V And VI ............................................................................168 Counts VII and VIII: The State of California ..................................................................169 A. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated California’s Do-Not-Call Registry Statute ..............................................169 ii 3:09-cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 4 of 195 B. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated California’s Unfair Competition Statute and Prohibition on Prerecorded Messages ..............................................................................170 C. Relief on Counts VII and VIII .................................................................172 Counts IX and X: The State of North Carolina................................................................174 A. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated North Carolina’s Do-Not-Call Registry Statute .......................................174 B. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated North Carolina’s Robocall Statute ..........................................................176 C. Relief on Counts IX and X .......................................................................177 Count XI: The State of Illinois.........................................................................................177 A. There Is No Genuine Material Factual Dispute That Dish Violated the Illinois Autodialer Act .......................................................................177 B. Relief on Count XI ...................................................................................179 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 179 iii 3:09-cv-03073-SEM-TSH # 402 Page 5 of 195 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ameritech Benefit Plan Comm. v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 220 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................77 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...........................................................................................................77 Ashland Facility Operations, LLC v. NLRB., 701 F.3d 983 (4th Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................................159 Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass’n, 7 Cal. 3d 94 (1972) ..........................................................................................................171 BCS Servs., Inc. v. Heartwood 88, LLC, 637 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................82 Bonime v. DIRECTV, Inc., B163051, 2003 WL 22931345 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2003) ........................................123 CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................87 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...........................................................................................................77 Clare v. Bell, 37 N.E.2d 812 (Ill. 1941) .................................................................................................178 Cmty. Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Ins. Co., 92 Cal. App. 4th 886 (2001) ............................................................................................171 Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) .........................................................................................................157 Costello v. Oppenheimer & Co., 711 F.2d 1361 (7th Cir. 1983) .........................................................................................167 Dugan v. Smerwick Sewerage Co., 142 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................77 EEOC v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................85 Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior

Load more