Rovio Entertainment LTD v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc. et al

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING #94 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8

ROVIO ENTERTAINMENT LTD, fka

Case No.: C 12-5543 SBA

9 ROVIO MOBILE OY,

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Docket 94

12 ROYAL PLUSH TOYS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Rovio Entertainment Ltd., fka Rovio Mobile Oy (“Plaintiff”),1 brings the instant
copyright and trademark infringement action against Defendants2 alleging that they are
intentionally and willfully selling infringing and unauthorized knockoff plush toys that are
nearly identical to Plaintiff’s Angry Birds plush toys in violation of Plaintiff’s copyright
registrations and ANGRY BIRDS trademarks. See Compl., Dkt. 1. On March 20, 2014,
the Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler’s (“the Magistrate”)
Report and Recommendation in which she recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment against Defendants. Dkt. 86. The parties are presently before the Court
on pro se Defendant Jong K. Park’s (“Park”) “Motion for de novo determination,” which
the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 94. Having read and considered
1

Plaintiff is a Finland-based company that developed the puzzle video game Angry
Birds. Compl. ¶ 18. In the game, players use a slingshot to launch birds at pigs stationed
26 on or within various structures, with the intent of destroying all the pigs on the playfield.
Id.
25

27
2

28

The named Defendants are: Royal Plush Toys, Inc., Western Sales and Services
Inc., Royal Trade Int’l Inc., and Jong K. Park (collectively, “Defendants”).

1

the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby

2

DENIES Park’s motion, for the reasons stated below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this

3

matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal.

4

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

5

I.

DISCUSSION

6

Where there has been a final judgment, a motion for reconsideration may be based

7

either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief

8

from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v.

9

N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-899 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion for

10

reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if it is filed within twenty-eight days of

11

entry of judgment. See id. (applying Rule 59(e)’s previous ten-day filing deadline). If the

12

motion is filed more than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment it is treated as a Rule

13

60(b) motion. See id. at 899. Here, because Park moved for reconsideration within twenty-

14

eight days of entry of judgment, the Court treats his motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter

15

or amend the judgment.

16

“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be

17

granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon

18

which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or

19

previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest

20

injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

21

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). However, relief under

22

Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. A Rule 59(e)

23

motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence

24

that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,

25

554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008).

26

The Court finds that Park has failed to demonstrate that relief is warranted under

27

Rule 59(e). Park does not argue that the judgment must be altered or amended due to an

28

intervening change in law or in light of newly-discovered evidence. Rather, although not
-2-

1

entirely clear, Park appears to argue in his one-page motion that the Court erred in adopting

2

the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation because the Magistrate’s recommendation to

3

award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $700,000 rests upon erroneous factual

4

findings. The Court disagrees. Park has failed to show that the extraordinary remedy

5

provided by Rule 59(e) is warranted. He has not proffered any evidence in connection with

6

the instant motion or otherwise shown that relief is necessary to correct manifest errors of

7

fact upon which the judgment rests. Nor has he shown that the judgment rests upon

8

manifest errors of law or that relief is otherwise appropriate to prevent manifest injustice.

9

Accordingly, Park’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

10

II.

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

12

1.

Park’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

13

2.

This Order terminates Docket 94.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: 5/29/2014

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-