G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen

Filing 39

Order by Hon. Edward J. Davila sua sponte granting leave to file motion for reconsideration of the court's oral ruling denying 29 Motion to Set Aside Default.(ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10
11

SAN JOSE DIVISION
G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
LIEN PHUONG D. NGUYEN,
Defendant.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:10-CV-05722 EJD
ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S ORAL RULING DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET
ASIDE DEFAULT
[Re: Docket No. 29]

On September 23, 2011, the court heard oral argument on Defendant Lien Phuong D.

18

Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) motion for an order setting aside the default entered in the above-entitled

19

action on August 22, 2011. At the hearing, the court issued an oral ruling denying Nguyen’s

20

motion to set aside the default.1

21

Although Nguyen has not moved for reconsideration of the court’s oral ruling, the court

22

finds it appropriate to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its ruling on the motion to set

23

aside the default. See U.S. v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (confirming that district

24

court has inherent jurisdiction and authority to modify, alter or revoke its own orders before they

25

become final, “absent some applicable rule or statute to the contrary”); Amarel v. Connell, 102

26
27
28

1

This ruling was not recorded in the court’s minute entry.

Case No.: 5:10-CV-05722 EJD
ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT’S ORAL RULING DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT
1

1

F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (“the interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-

2

trial by a district judge are subject to modification by the district judge at any time prior to final

3

judgment”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (a decision that does not dispose of every claim “may be revised

4

at any time before the entry of a judgment”).

5

The court finds that a material difference in law regarding the meritorious nature of
Nguyen’s defense exists from that which was presented to the court before its oral ruling.

7

Specifically, in Plaintiff’s papers and at oral argument, Plaintiff argued that good faith is not a

8

defense because 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553 are strict liability offenses. District Courts, however,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

have reached conflicting conclusions regarding whether strict liability applies to good faith

10

purchases. Compare J & J Sports Prods. Inc. v. Gidha, No. CIV-S-10-2509 KJM-KJN, 2011 WL

11

3439205, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) (finding defendants could have a meritorious defense

12

where it purchased cable provider improperly billed them for the residential rate instead of the

13

commercial rate) with Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Easterling, No. 4:08 CV 1259, 2009 WL

14

1767579, at *4-5 (N.D. Ohio June 22, 2009) (finding defendant who purchased residential license

15

had no good faith defense to violating §§ 605 and 553). Because the issue appears to not yet be

16

resolved within this Circuit, litigation of Nguyen’s defense may not be a “wholly empty exercise.”

17

TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 700 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, if Nguyen had

18

moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the court would have granted her leave. See

19

Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(1). It therefore is proper for the court to sua sponte grant Nguyen leave to file a

20

motion for reconsideration. Accordingly,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than January 27, 2012, Nguyen shall file a motion

22

for reconsideration of the court’s oral ruling denying the motion to set aside the default that

23

specifically addresses whether Nguyen has a meritorious defense. Any opposition brief shall be

24

filed no later than 14 days after the motion is filed. See Civil L.R. 7-3. Any reply brief shall be

25

filed no later than 7 days after the opposition is filed. See id. Oral argument on the motion for

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:10-CV-05722 EJD
ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT’S ORAL RULING DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT
2

1

reconsideration will be heard on March 9, 2012 at 9 a.m.

2

Dated: January 3, 2012

_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:10-CV-05722 EJD
ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT’S ORAL RULING DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT
3