J&J Sports Productions, Inc v. Nguyen

Filing 26

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 25 Motion to Alter Judgment.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
VAN T. NGUYEN,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

17

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to alter or amend the judgment

18

of this Court against Defendant Van T. Nguyen a/k/a/ Van H. Nguyen, individually and d/b/a Got

19

Hong (“Defendant”). See ECF No. 25 (“Motion”). The Court finds this matter suitable for

20

decision without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for May 30, 2013. See Civil L.R. 7-

21

1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend

22

Judgment.

23

I.

24

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. is a distributor of sports and entertainment

25

programming, and alleges that it was granted exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights

26

to “‘Tactical Warfare’: Manny Pacquiao v. Antonio Margarito, WBC Light Middleweight

27

Championship Fight Program” (the “Program”), originally telecast on November 13, 2010. See

28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that the Program was unlawfully intercepted and exhibited at

2

Defendant’s commercial establishment, Got Hong, located in San Jose, California. Id. ¶ 12.

3

On November 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action for: (1) violating the Federal

4

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq.; (2) violating the Cable and

5

Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 553, et

6

seq.; (3) conversion; and (4) violating California Business and Professions Code § 17200. ECF

7

No. 1. Plaintiff then served Defendant with the Summons, Complaint, and related documents on

8

May 23, 2012. ECF No. 14. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil

9

Procedure, Defendant was required to file and serve his responsive pleading on Plaintiff no later

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

than June 13, 2012. However, Defendant failed to appear and failed to file any responsive

11

pleading. See Mot. Default J, ECF No. 21, at 2. On June 25, 2012, after Defendant failed to

12

respond to the Complaint, Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Defendant. ECF No. 16. On

13

June 29, 2012, the Clerk entered default. ECF No. 19.

14

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff moved the Court for entry of default judgment pursuant to

15

Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 21. On December 17, 2012, the

16

Court entered judgment against Defendant and awarded damages in the amount of $8,800.

17

Specifically, the Court awarded Plaintiff $2,200 in statutory damages, $4,400 in enhanced

18

damages, and $2,200 for conversion. See Order Granting Mot. Default J., ECF No. 24 (“Order”).

19

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment of the Court with

20

respect to its award of enhanced statutory damages. ECF No. 25.

21

II.

22

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

59(e). Rule 59(e) is generally seen as “an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly’” and at the

24

discretion of the Court. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

25

“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual

26

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

27

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McDowell v. Calderon,

28

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179
2
Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

2

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered

3

by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” United

4

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation

5

marks and citation omitted). “To succeed [on a motion to alter or amend judgment], a party must

6

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

7

decision.” Id.

8

III.

9

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff requests that the Court alter or amend its prior Order, though does not present any

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

newly discovered evidence or allege any change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff argues that

11

the Court committed “clear error” in awarding only $4,400 in enhanced damages because,

12

according to Plaintiff, the Court’s award “will not serve the purpose of deterring future pirating

13

activity.” Mot. at 5. As such, Plaintiff requests that the Court’s enhanced statutory damages award

14

be increased up to the maximum by statute. See Mot. at 5 (citing Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), which

15

authorizes the Court to award up to $100,000, in its discretion, upon finding that the violation “was

16

committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private

17

financial gain.”); cf. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B) (authorizing the Court to award up to $50,000, in its

18

discretion, for the same reasons).

19

In its December 17, 2012 Order, the Court found that “Defendant’s repeated violations

20

evidence a willfulness that warrants a greater enhanced damages award.” Order at 8. Taking into

21

account the individual circumstances of this Defendant’s history of piracy, as well as the amounts

22

awarded by other Courts in this District, the Court found an enhanced damages award of $4,400 –

23

approximately double the cost of the estimated licensing fee – to be adequate. See Order at 8.

24

Notwithstanding the Court’s decision, Plaintiff argues that, because Defendant is a two time

25

repeat offender, a greater damages award is warranted in order to maximize possible deterrence.

26

Mot. at 5-6. Plaintiff cites an unpublished case from the Eastern District of New York for the

27

proposition that “the defendant must be held accountable for an amount significant enough to deter

28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

[its illegal] conduct.” Mot. at 6 (quoting J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Castrillon, No. 07-02946,

2

2009 WL 1033364, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2009)).

3

However, clear error is not established by arguing that another court “would have decided
the case differently.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks and

5

citation omitted). Instead, it requires a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

6

committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts grant reconsideration due

7

to clear error “only if the prior decision was ‘clearly’ wrong.” Bull v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 758 F.

8

Supp. 2d 925, 928 (N.D. Cal 2010) (citing Leslie Salt v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir.

9

1995)). “A district court does not commit clear error warranting reconsideration when the question

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

before it is a debatable one.” Morales v. Tingey, No. 05-03498, 2010 WL 459046, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

11

Feb. 3, 2010) (citing McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256).

12

While the Court recognizes that deterrence of piracy is an important policy goal underlying

13

the Federal Communications Act, Congress unambiguously granted individual courts wide

14

discretion in fashioning enhanced damages awards based on a finding of willfulness. See 47

15

U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B). The Court is not required by statute to

16

increase damages for every act of willfulness. Rather, the plain language of the statute states that

17

the Court “in its discretion may increase the award” if it finds willfulness. 47 U.S.C.

18

§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) (emphasis added); see also 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B) (same). As the Court’s

19

discretion to award enhanced damages in this case is statutorily derived, and as the Court remained

20

within its discretion in awarding an enhanced damages award based on Defendant’s repeat offenses

21

and the awards of other Courts in this District, the Court did not commit clear error as would

22

justify altering or amending the judgment. Plaintiff has failed to cite any authority – much less

23

binding authority – establishing otherwise.

24

Finally, Plaintiff notes that the Northern District of California has rendered two prior

25

judgments against this Defendant, one of which resulted in an award of $5,000 in enhanced

26

statutory damages. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Nguyen, No. 10-05856, 2011 WL 4551454

27

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011); J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Nguyen, No. 11-01169, 2011 WL

28

6217411 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011). However, the “general rule is that a district judge’s decision
4
Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

neither binds another district judge nor binds him, although a judge ought to give great weight to

2

his own prior decisions.” McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004); ATSI

3

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 547 F.3d 109, 112 (2d. Cir. 2008) (“District court decisions . .

4

. create no rule of law binding on other courts.”). When the legal authority at issue is only

5

persuasive, and not binding, the Court may exercise its discretion in deciding an issue. In this case,

6

the Court determined that an enhanced damages award of $4,400 – approximately double the cost

7

of the estimated licensing fee – was adequate. See Order at 8. Plaintiff has failed to show anything

8

more than a disagreement with the Court’s exercise of its discretion. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.

9

Supp. 2d at1131.1

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IV.

11

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to show any clear error warranting reconsideration pursuant to Rule

12

59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 16, 2013

16

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

1

Plaintiff also requests that, to the extent relevant, this Court award damages under 47 U.S.C.
§ 605 rather than 47 U.S.C. § 553. See Mot. at 4-5. In the Court’s Order, the Court found that it
was unnecessary to determine whether 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 or 553 applies to this case because both
statutes provide a discretionary range of possible damage awards that are, in part, overlapping. See
Order at 5. Specifically, the maximum statutory damages permitted for each willful violation of
Section 605 is up to $100,000.00, see 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), whereas the maximum statutory
damages permitted for each willful violation of Section 553 is up $50,000.00, see 47 U.S.C. §
553(c)(3)(B). As the Court declines to award enhanced statutory damages in excess of $50,000.00,
the Court need not resolve the issue of whether it is more appropriate to apply Section 553 or
Section 605 in the default judgment context. The Court notes that there is a split of authority as to
this issue. Compare J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v Ayala, No. 11-05437, 2012 WL 4097754, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012), with G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Castro, No. 12-01036, 2012
WL 3276989, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012).
5
Case No.: 11-CV-05441-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT