J & J Sports Production, Inc. v. Torres

Filing 22

ORDER discharging Order to Show Cause; denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; and dismissing case. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/20/2014. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
FRANCO CRUZ TORRES,

12

No. C-13-5644 EMC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; AND
DISMISSING CASE

Defendant.
(Docket No. 20)

13
___________________________________/
14
15

Previously, this Court denied Plaintiff J&J Sports Production, Inc.’s motion for default

16

judgment. The Court also ordered J&J to show cause as to why the instant case should not be

17

dismissed with prejudice given its ruling on the default judgment motion. J&J has now filed a

18

response to the order to show cause. In its response, J&J asks the Court to reconsider its ruling on

19

the default judgment motion. In the alternative, J&J asks the Court to give it the opportunity to

20

“conduct additional investigation, including third-party discovery, to support its allegations.” Resp.

21

at 6.

22

Based on J&J’s response, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the order to show cause.

23

However, the Court also DENIES the motion for reconsideration. J&J has not met the standard to

24

justify a motion for reconsideration, as provided for in Civil Local Rule 7-9.

25

Furthermore, on the merits, J&J’s position fails. For example, J&J contends that this Court

26

is bound by the allegations in J&J’s complaint but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 expressly

27

provides that a court may make an inquiry into “the truth of any allegation by evidence.” Fed. R.

28

Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(C).

1

J&J also argues that whether Defendant Franco Cruz Torres sought to enhance his profits is

2

an issue that goes to damages and not liability. Typically, this is true. But in the circumstances

3

presented here, whether Mr. Torres was taking action to enhance his profits is also probative of

4

liability. In other words, if there were evidence that Mr. Torres was taking steps to profit from the

5

display of the sports program, then that would make it more likely that the sports program was being

6

displayed at his behest.

7

Finally, J&J asserts that simply because the program was being shown at the establishment,

cited by J&J is easily distinguishable from the facts in this case. In the instant case, the sports

10

program was being displayed on a laptop, with no indication that the laptop belonged to or was

11
For the Northern District of California

that is sufficient to establish liability. That position is not supported by any authority. The case

9

United States District Court

8

otherwise affiliated with Mr Torres or the establishment. In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.

12

Jorgenson, No. 12-C-0159, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1467 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 4, 2013), the program was

13

shown on three wall-mounted televisions inside the establishment and was advertised on a “large

14

sign outside the [establishment] announcing the event’s broadcast.” Id. at *9.

15

The only question remaining is whether the alternative relief sought by J&J – i.e., an

16

opportunity to conduct additional investigation, including third-party discovery – should be granted.

17

The Court denies the request for alternative relief. J&J has failed to provide any specifics as to the

18

investigation or third-party discovery that it would like to conduct. It has simply asked in

19

conclusory terms for permission to continue this case. The Court is not inclined to give J&J a

20

further opportunity to provide specifics because (1) it should have conducted an investigation prior

21

to bringing suit given the obvious deficiencies in the case1 and (2) it had an opportunity to provide

22

specifics on the additional investigation and/or third-party discovery in its response to the order to

23

show cause but did not. J&J should not be given a third “bite at the apple.”

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

J&J’s failure to investigate further prior to bringing suit is questionable given its obligations under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

2

1
2
3
4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court discharges the order to show cause, denies J&J’s motion
for reconsideration, and dismisses this case with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion and
close the file in this case.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 20, 2014

9

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3