Sky Cable, LLC v. Directv, Inc.

886 F.3d 375 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D operated various businesses that provide consumers with access to cable television services. In 2000, D, through East Coast Cablevision, LLC (ECC), contracted with P to provide its programming to 168 rooms at the Massanutten Resort in Virginia. By May 2011, D was receiving payment for cable services provided to over 2,500 units but continued to pay P only for services provided to the original 168 units. In 2011, Sky Cable, LLC (Sky), a dealer of P's services, sued D, his wife, Kimberli Coley (Mrs. Coley), and P, among others alleging that Sky had been deprived of certain revenue as a result of D's unlawful distribution scheme. The court dismissed Sky's claims against P, but P filed cross-claims in the case under 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) against D, Mrs. Coley, and ECC for unauthorized receipt and distribution of P's programming. D also managed three other LLCs, namely ITT, East Coast, and South Raleigh. D created ITT to hold title to real property for various rental properties purchased by him and his wife. P has not alleged that ITT was a part of the illegal cable television transmission scheme. D is also the sole member of East Coast and South Raleigh, who both manage and collect income on the properties owned by ITT. D and these three LLCs have engaged in a continuous commingling of funds. Mrs. Coley represented that she had not been involved in D's businesses and had no membership interest in ITT. The district court entered judgment in favor of P against D and ECC. Damages of $2,393,000 were awarded. After the district court entered its judgment and P, could not collect on the judgment. P filed a motion to reverse pierce the corporate veil of ITT, East Coast, and South Raleigh. These three LLCs were not parties to the case and had not been served with process. The district court entered an amended judgment rendering the three LLCs co-judgment debtors. D appealed. D asserts that Delaware law does not permit reverse piercing of a corporate veil, even when the corporation is an alter ego of the judgment debtor.