Integrated Sports Media, Inc. v. Mendez

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 69 Motion to Alter Judgment (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 INTEGRATED SPORTS MEDIA, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ERLINDA MARGARITA MENDEZ, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 10-3516 PJH Defendant. _______________________________/ 12 13 On August 25, 2014, plaintiff Integrated Sports Media, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed the 14 present motion to alter or amend this court’s judgment, awarding a total of $3,000 in 15 statutory and enhanced damages. 16 Plaintiff’s motion is unclear as to whether it challenges only the $1,000 award of 17 statutory damages, or whether it also challenges the $2,000 award of enhanced damages. 18 In either case, the court finds that plaintiff has already raised the arguments presented in its 19 motion, both in its original motion for default judgment (before Magistrate Judge Beeler) 20 and in its objections to Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation (before this court). 21 Specifically, in the order adopting the report and recommendation, this court noted 22 that Judge Beeler found that there was “‘no indication’ that defendant was a repeat 23 offender, and no allegations or evidence that defendant increased food/beverage prices or 24 had an increased number of patrons on the day of the offense,” and thus “recommended a 25 statutory damages award that represented plaintiff’s actual losses.” See Dkt. 67. In its 26 objections, plaintiff “recognize[d] that certain Northern District court have utilized the 27 commercial licensing fee to calculate statutory damages,” but “request[ed] that this court 28 decline to accept that approach.” See Dkt. 66-1 at 4. The court overruled that objection, 1 2 and adopted the report and recommendation. Plaintiff now similarly argues that “the general approach the Northern District has 3 taken to piracy is out of sync with the suggestions of the Ninth Circuit.” The court 4 disagrees, and declines to take the approach urged by plaintiff. 5 Plaintiff also argues that an award in the amount of an unpaid license fee 6 “underestimates plaintiff’s actual loss.” However, plaintiff does not explain how it incurred 7 losses beyond the amount of the license fee. Instead, plaintiff appears to be arguing that 8 the damages award should exceed the amount of the license fee so that it will deter would- 9 be infringers. And, indeed, in the report and recommendation, Judge Beeler found evidence to support the inference that defendant “willfully intercepted and exhibited the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 program,” and, in light of that “willful misconduct and the goal of deterring future violations,” 12 the court recommended “an enhanced damages award of $2,000 – twice [plaintiff’s] actual 13 losses.” See Dkt. 63 at 10. 14 In short, plaintiff has provided no new arguments in this motion, and instead simply 15 requests a larger damages award. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to establish that the 16 court committed clear error or that there has been an intervening change in the controlling 17 law, nor has plaintiff presented any newly-discovered evidence to justify a Rule 59 remedy. 18 Given that plaintiff’s arguments have already been considered and rejected, plaintiff’s 19 motion to alter or amend judgment is DENIED, and the October 29, 2014 hearing date is 20 VACATED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: September 18, 2014 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?