Log in

View Full Version : D*sh Nets $121,699,800 in Panarex/Won Tak Kim Case



abby
03-12-2010, 12:52 PM
D*sh Nets $121,699,800 in Panarex/Won Tak Kim Case

Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction

2:07-cv-05897-JZ-PLA
E*hostar Satellite L.L.C. et al v. Panarex, Inc. et al
Jack Zouhary, presiding

Case highlights:
This Permanent Injunction takes effect immediately.

Should Defendants breach any part of this Final Judgment or permanent injunction, they shall be subject to damages in the amount of $110,000 for each such breach or violation, which is the maximum statutory damages permitted per violation.

The Court further ORDERS judgment in favor of Plaintiffs D*SH Network L.L.C. (f/k/a E*hoStar Satellite L.L.C.), E*hoStar Technologies L.L.C. and N*graStar LLC on each of the Plaintiffs claims in the aggregate amount of one hunred twenty one million, six hundred ninety nine thousand, eight hundred Dollars ($121,699,800.00) against Panarex, Inc. and Won Tak Kim jointly and severally.

The Court further ORDERS judgment in favor of Plaintiffs D*SH Network L.L.C. (f/k/a E*hoStar Satellite L.L.C.), E*hoStar Technologies L.L.C. and N*graStar LLC on Plaintiffs claims for unjust enrichment and violation of Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code prohibiting unfair competition and awards the permanent injunctive relief.

The Court further awards Plaintiffs D*SH Network L.L.C. (f/k/a E*hoStar Satellite L.L.C.), E*hoStar Technologies L.L.C. and N*graStar LLC full costs of suit, including non-taxable costs,and attorneys' fees in the amount of five million, five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000.00)

This is a final judgment. Any and all relief not expressly granted herein is denied.

(Refer to the attachments)


E*hostar Satellite L.L.C. et al v. Panarex, Inc. et al
Plaintiffs: E*hostar Satellite L.L.C., E*hostar Technologies Corporation and N*grastar L.L.C.

Defendants: Panarex, Inc. and Does

Case Number: 2:2007cv05897
Filed: September 11, 2007

Court: California Central District Court
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County: XX US, Outside California
Presiding Judge: George P. Schiavelli
Referring Judge: Paul L. Abrams

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Cable/Satellite TV
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
c/p

B4U
03-14-2010, 07:22 PM
WOW !!!! they will need to start selling FTA's again to raise that much

fagin
03-16-2010, 04:48 AM
WOW !!!! they will need to start selling FTA's again to raise that much

While the judgement handed down by the court is legit it is kind of pointless.There is no chance in hell anyone is going to pay this figure even if they could.So often in law suits of any kind they award figures that will never ever reach the hands of Dxxxooo because of the physical impractabillity of the sum.

stman
03-16-2010, 06:52 PM
The whole point of these type of judgments are for them to be financially ruinous. Whether collected in total or part is immaterial.

fifties
03-16-2010, 11:35 PM
The whole point of these type of judgments are for them to be financially ruinous. Whether collected in total or part is immaterial.
That's not exactly correct; the point is to display that they have a big hammer to use should the defendants ever again involve themselves with satellite piracy.

The actual settlement amounts for many -if not all- of these litigation's are quite a bit less than what is publicized in unsealed documents.

stman
03-17-2010, 12:06 AM
That's not exactly correct; the point is to display that they have a big hammer to use should the defendants ever again involve themselves with satellite piracy.

The actual settlement amounts for many -if not all- of these litigation's are quite a bit less than what is publicized in unsealed documents.

Actually that is exactly what my meaning was.

fagin
03-18-2010, 06:02 PM
Thanks for clarifying that.It makes more sense now.