J & J Sports Productions, Inc v. Hernandez

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying 28 Motion to Alter Judgment. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC,

Case No. 12-cv-05773-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

9
10

MENERVA HERNANDEZ,

Re: ECF No. 28

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has moved for an order altering or

13
14

amending the Court’s judgment of June 27, 2013. ECF No. 28. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court has determined that the motion is suitable

16

for disposition without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for August

17

29, 2013.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

A.

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Menerva Hernandez, individually and doing business as El

20
21

Milagro Restaurant (“Defendant”) intercepted and rebroadcast the Manny Pacquiao v. Juan

22

Manuel Marquez III WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program to which Plaintiff owns

23

the exclusive commercial distribution rights. Complaint, at ¶¶ 9-12, ECF No. 1. Defendant failed

24

to answer Plaintiff’s complaint. After a hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default

25

judgment, awarding Plaintiff $2,200 in damages for the tort of conversion, and $2,200 in

26

enhanced/statutory damages under Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code. Order

27

Granting Default Judgment, ECF No. 23; Judgment, ECF No. 24.

28

///

1

B.

Jurisdiction
This Court has original federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal statutory

2
3

causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and has exercised supplemental jurisdiction over

4

Plaintiff’s state-law conversion claim since it forms “part of the same case or controversy.” 28

5

U.S.C. § 1367(a).

6

C.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a motion to alter or amend

7

judgment may be brought within 28 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e). “Under Rule

9

59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

10

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179

12

F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

13

II.

14

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence or argue that there has been any

15

intervening change in the controlling law. However, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed

16

clear error for two reasons.

17

First, Plaintiff argues the Court erred in awarding damages under 47 U.S.C. § 553 rather

18

than 47 U.S.C. § 605. Plaintiff “acknowledges that there is a split of authority in the Northern

19

District on this issue.” ECF No. 28, at 4:7-8. For reasons explained by the Court in its previous

20

order, the Court finds it appropriate to assess penalties in this situation under Section 553 rather

21

than Section 605. Order Granting Default Judgment, at 5:13-4:7. This was not clear error.

22

Second, Plaintiff objects to the amount of damages the Court awarded, on the grounds that

23

the amount will not adequately deter future violations, and because other courts have awarded

24

higher penalties in comparable situations. Under Section 553, a district court has the discretion to

25

determine whether to assess enhanced/statutory damages as opposed to actual damages, and then

26

has the discretion to award an amount at its discretion subject to certain minimum and maximum

27

amounts. See 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3). The Court did not commit clear error in entering an award

28

within the statutory range.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Plaintiff’s motion to amend or alter the judgment is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: August 20, 2013

5
6
7

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3