Trevor McCann has been practicing civil litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants since 2006. He has experience handling television signal piracy defense, myriad small business litigation matters, and personal injury cases in State and Federal courts.
Trevor received his B.A. in History from California State University, Hayward and his J.D. from Washburn University School of Law. He is a member of both the State Bar of California and State Bar of New York.
Trevor is a fifth-generation Californian, born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Signal piracy lawsuits are daunting for defendants. The Federal laws on which signal piracy lawsuits are based are complex. Moreover, plaintiffs' aggressive pursuits of these lawsuits often overwhelm and intimidate defendants. An experienced signal piracy defense attorney can make all the difference.
Trevor has successfuly litigated signal piracy cases in California, New York, and Illinois. He also advises attorneys nationwide about signal piracy laws and defense strategies.
While it is important for any person facing a signal piracy lawsuit to immediately contact an attorney, it is equally important that a defendant contact an attorney who specializes in signal piracy defense. An experienced signal piracy defense attorney can save a defendant time and, more importantly, money.
If you have received settlement demand letters or a Summons and Complaint, protect your rights by contacting Trevor for a free consultation.
About Signal Piracy Laws:
The Telecommunications Act of 1984 (the "Act") is Federal law that prohibits both businesses and individuals from recieving and displaying television programming, oridinarily a Pay-Per-View boxing or U.F.C. match, without the program owner's and/or distributor's consent. Since 1990, television program owners have filed thousands of lawsuits against restaurant and bar owners alleging violations of two subparts of the Act: 47 U.S.C. §553 ("§553") and 47 U.S.C. §605 ("§605"). The lawsuits often allege two State law claims, which vary according to the alleged defedant's home State: conversion (or "stealing") and unfair business practices. In addition to these lawsuits, the same plaintiffs have sent thousands of pre-litigation demand letters to potential defendants offering to settle alleged claims before lawsuits are filed.
In many cases, plaintiffs base their allegations upon private investigator reports and statements. Typically, these private investigators pose as business patrons and stay for only a brief 5 - 10 minute period. In that time the private investigators serveil the bar or restaurant and note the following: programs being shown on television(s), whether patrons pay a cover charge to enter, premium prices on food or beverage, number of patrons present, and whether the bar or restaurant posted advertisements about alleged intercepted programs. And recently, many private investigators have used video surveillance to further substantiate their reports to plaintiffs.
Unfortunately, §553 and §605 are strict liability statutes and caselaw weighs heavily in a program owner's favor. In the context of §553 and §605, strict liability means that even if a defendant believes he or she lawfully ordered, paid for, and watched a program, the plaintiff is entitled to damages if the defendant did not purchase a proper license directly from the program owner. Moreover, defendants are often held strictly liable under §553 and §605 when an employee or customer received and displayed a program without the defendant's knowledge or consent. Lastly, plaintiffs have successfully pierced the corporate veil time and again, so a defendant should not rely on limited liability when weighing a defense strategy.
If found liable under §553 or §605, defendants may face devastating damages awards; both §553 and §605 provide for "statutory" and "enhanced" damages in excess of $100,000.00 and each statute provides for attorneys fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. While program owners rarely obtain $100,000.00 damages awards, courts routinely find defendants liable for sums between $15,000.00 - 50,000.00.
In today's business climate, entrepreneurs should consider the benefits of proactive business strategies rather than reactive litigation strategies.
For example, in forming a corporation or limited liability company, an entrepreneur can insulate him or herself from liability arising from claims against the business. Small business owners can also avail themselves of Federal and State tax laws enacted to encourage investment and development. And well-drafted contracts can decrease (though not necessarily eliminate) the possibility of future disputes among owners and customers and/or suppliers. Trevor can help you create a proactive legal strategy, including these and other tools, to help your small business thrive.
In the event you face a threat of litigation, Trevor can effectively represent your commercial interests. He has experience representing small businesses in both State and Federal courts.
If you have suffered harm due to another person's intentional or reckless actions or negligence, you may be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, lost earnings, and medical expenses.
Trevor has handled hundreds of personal injury cases arising from motor vehicle accidents, product liability, and premises liability.
Trevor takes personal injury cases on a contingent fee basis and all litigation costs are advanced; this means no out-of-pocket costs and you pay nothing unless your case is successfully resolved.
If you have been injured in an accident, schedule a free no-obligation consultation for analysis of your particular case.
For general questions or to schedule a free consultation, please contact us by telephone or email.
This website is attorney advertising. The materials and information contained in the TBMCLaw website are provided for GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. The material should not be construed and is not intended as legal advice on any subject matter and is NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL COUNSELING from a qualified licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. IT IS NOT INTENDED, NOR DOES IT CREATE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP and no attorney-client relationship is formed unless agreed to in writing. In the event this communication is not in conformity with the regulations of any state, Trevor McCann is not willing to accept representation based on this communication. The content of this website comes "as-is" and its accuracy, completeness, or applicability is not guaranteed. Trevor McCann expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this site.