used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a). In Count Two of the Complaint, DIRECTV alleges that Thompson “intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, or procured other persons to intercept electronic communications from DIRECTV.” (Compl. at ¶ 85). Further, DIRECTV alleges that Thompson “disclosed or endeavored to disclose to others” the intercepted communications and “intentionally used or endeavored to use” the intercepted communic ons in which it held that § 2520 does not create a private right of action for alleged violations of § 2512(l)(b) and dismissed claims identical to those in this action. See, e.g., Baker, 318 F.Supp.2d at 1116-1120 (<HOLDING>); Childers, 274 F.Supp.2d at 1289-89 (same).
holding that the language of  2520a does not provide an explicit private right of action for a violation of  25121b holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights recognizing private right of action holding that no private right of action exists holding that a private right of action exists