J & J Sport Productions, Inc., v. Munguia

Filing 17

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 16 Motion to Alter Judgment.(lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

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.
BAUDELIA MUNGUIA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

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

17
18

of this Court against Defendant Baudelia Munguia, a/k/a Baudelia Munguia de Manriquez,

19

individually and doing business as Los Molcajetes (“Defendant”). See ECF No. 16 (“Mot.”).

20

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7- 1(b), this Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral

21

argument and VACATES the hearing set for May 29, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, this

22

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.

23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

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 “Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Miguel Cotto, WBA Super World Light Middleweight Championship

27

Fight Program” (the “Program”), originally telecast on Saturday, May 5, 2012. See Compl., ECF

28

No. 1, ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that the Program was unlawfully intercepted and exhibited at
1
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

Defendant’s commercial establishment, Los Molcajetes, located in San Jose, California. Id. ¶¶ 17-

2

18.

3

On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant 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

June 3, 2013. ECF No. 6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Defendant

9

was required to file and serve her responsive pleading on Plaintiff no later than June 24, 2013.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

However, Defendant failed to appear and failed to file any responsive pleading. See Mot. Default

11

J., ECF No. 12-1, at 2. On July 15, 2013, after Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint,

12

Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Defendant. ECF No. 10. On July 17, 2013, the Clerk

13

entered default. ECF No. 11.

14

On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff moved this Court for entry of default judgment pursuant to

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). ECF No. 12. On January 14, 2014, this Court entered

16

judgment against Defendant and awarded damages in the amount of $9,900. See Order Granting

17

Mot. Default J., ECF No. 15 (“Order”). Specifically, this Court awarded Plaintiff $4,200 in

18

statutory damages, $1,500 in enhanced damages, and $4,200 for conversion. See id. at 7-8.

19

On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment of this Court with

20

respect to its award of enhanced damages. ECF No. 16.

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[.]’” Carroll

24

v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “[A] district court enjoys

25

considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion [to alter or amend judgment under Rule

26

59(e)].” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 11

27

Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). “A motion for

28

reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
2
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

2

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id. at 1255 (quoting 389 Orange St.

3

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “A party seeking reconsideration must

4

show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and

5

arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving

6

party’s burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.

7

2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To succeed, a party must set forth facts or

8

law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Id.

9

III.

DISCUSSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In its January 14, 2014 Order, this Court found that there were approximately 80-85 patrons

11

present during Plaintiff’s investigation of Los Molcajetes and that there was a cover charge of $15.

12

See Order at 7. This Court, however, found “no evidence that Defendant advertised the fight, had a

13

minimum purchase requirement, or had a special premium on food and drink on the night of the

14

fight.” Id. Moreover, “Plaintiff has not submitted evidence that Defendant is a repeat offender.”

15

Id. Thus, taking into account the individual circumstances of the Defendant, as well as the

16

amounts awarded by other courts in this district, this Court found an enhanced damages award of

17

$1,500 to be adequate. See id. at 7-8.

18

Notwithstanding this Court’s decision, Plaintiff requests that this Court alter or amend its

19

prior Order, though Plaintiff does not present any newly discovered evidence or allege any change

20

in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff argues that this Court committed “clear error” in awarding

21

$1,500 in enhanced damages because, according to Plaintiff, the enhanced damages award “[does]

22

not sufficiently address the necessity of deterrence and [is] insufficient under the facts of this case.

23

See Mot. at 4-7. According to Plaintiff, based on other courts’ calculation of damages, the

24

appropriate enhanced damages award is “at a minimum” $12,600—three times the amount of this

25

Court’s statutory damages of $4,200. See Mot. at 6.

26

As an initial matter, clear error is not established by arguing that another court “would have

27

decided the case differently.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation

28

marks and citation omitted). Instead, it requires a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
3
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

question before it is a debatable one.” Morales v. Tingey, No. C05-3498 PJH (PR), 2010 WL

6

459046, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (citing McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256).

7

Plaintiff argues that this Court’s enhanced statutory damages award of $1,500 and total

8

damages award of $9,900 “do[] not satisfy the goal of deterrence, either specific or general.” Mot.

9

at 5. Plaintiff cites to district court cases that called for “an award substantially higher than the cost

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant would have incurred to purchase a license to lawfully exhibit the program” or awarded

11

higher enhanced statutory damages than here. See Mot. at 4-5. However, this Court is not bound

12

by any other district court decision when deciding this case. The “general rule is that a district

13

judge’s decision neither binds another district judge nor binds him, although a judge ought to give

14

great weight to his own prior decisions.” McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir.

15

2004); ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 547 F.3d 109, 112 (2d. Cir. 2008) (“District court

16

decisions . . . create no rule of law binding on other courts.”). Further, Plaintiff does not fully

17

explain how this Court’s $1,500 award of enhanced damages and this Court’s total damages award

18

of $9,900 fail to satisfy the goal of specific or general deterrence. Notwithstanding conceding that

19

“this Court acknowledge[d] the necessity of deterrence” in the Order, Plaintiff fails to establish

20

how this Court’s damages award will not specifically deter Defendant and generally deter others

21

from future piracy. See Mot. at 5 (stating “It may be argued that Defendant is not on notice and

22

that, if he pirates again, he will face stiffer consequences. While Plaintiff disagrees with this

23

approach, assuming it is valid with respect to this Defendant, this also does not take into account

24

the issue of general deterrence.”). Plaintiff’s disagreement with this Court’s approach and

25

conclusory statements are not persuasive.

26

Plaintiff also argues that, “there is significant evidence of willfulness and financial gain

27

such that $1,500 in enhanced statutory damages is insufficient under the facts of this case.” Mot. at

28

5. Plaintiff points to the fact that the Program was shown to approximately 80-85 patrons and that
4
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1

the establishment required a $15 cover charge as “significant evidence” of willfulness and financial

2

gain. See Mot. at 5. In support, Plaintiff cites to a Southern District of Texas case for the

3

proposition that “[a] cover charge is a primary consideration of enhanced statutory damages.” Mot.

4

at 5-6 (citing J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Bongo’s Sports Bar, Inc., No. H-10-3669, 2011 WL

5

1496957, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2011)). Plaintiff also cites to two other courts in this district

6

which awarded enhanced damages three to five times the statutory damages even though the

7

defendants did not charge a cover charge. See Mot. at 6 (citing Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Ho,

8

No. C-09-01435 RMW, 2009 WL 3047321 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009) (awarding $1,000 in

9

statutory damages and $5,000 in enhanced damages), and J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Marcaida, No. 10-5125 SC, 2011 WL 2149923 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) (finding that “an award

11

equal to three times the price Defendant would have had to pay the program is an appropriate

12

sanction in this case” and thus awards plaintiff $6,600 for statutory damages and enhanced

13

damages)). However, as explained above, this Court is not bound by any other district court

14

decision when deciding this case.

15

Further, Congress unambiguously granted individual courts wide discretion in fashioning

16

enhanced damages awards based on a finding of willfulness. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); 47

17

U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B). This Court is not required by statute to increase damages for every act of

18

willfulness. Rather, the plain language of the statute states that this Court “in its discretion may

19

increase the award” if it finds willfulness. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) (emphasis added); see also

20

47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B) (same). This Court notes that other courts in this district have declined to

21

award enhanced damages even when the defendant imposed a cover charge. See, e.g., J & J Sports

22

Productions v. Parayno, Case No. C-12-2223 SI, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112925, at *4-5 (N.D.

23

Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (awarding $5,200 in statutory damages but no enhanced damages where

24

approximately 30 patrons were present at the defendant’s establishment and the defendant imposed

25

a $20 cover charge); J & J Sports Prods. v. Parayno, No. C12-04790 THE, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26

33377, at *6-8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013) (awarding $2,000 in statutory damages but no enhanced

27

damages where approximately 20 patrons were present at the defendant’s establishment and the

28

defendant imposed a $10 cover charge). Accordingly, just as courts in this district exercised their
5
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

discretion in awarding higher enhanced damages or declining to award any enhanced damages, this

2

Court exercised its discretion to award enhanced damages of $1,500 based on the facts of this case.

3

Plaintiff next argues that the “the Ninth Circuit has suggested that a higher award is

4

appropriate.” Mot. at 7. In support, Plaintiff cites to Kingsvision v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347,

5

350 (9th Cir. 1999). Id. Plaintiff concedes Lake Alice Bar “does not bind this Court with respect

6

to damages” but argues that Lake Alice Bar is “instructive because it is an example of the Ninth

7

Circuit evaluating an appropriate piracy award.” Id. However, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the

8

Ninth Circuit in Lake Alice Bar did not state that a low five figure judgment is a proper piracy

9

award in every circumstance. See Mot. at 8. The Ninth Circuit only stated, “[d]epending on the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

circumstances, a low five figure may be a stiff fine that deters, while a high five figure judgment

11

puts a bar out of business.” Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d at 350. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit vacated

12

the district court order reducing a judgment from $80,400 to $4,000 not because it was too low, but

13

because the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court’s procedure of reducing the judgment

14

was incorrect. Id. at 349-51. The Ninth Circuit remanded so that both sides may be heard on the

15

appropriate amount of any reduction in the judgment. Id. at 352. Plaintiff has not suggested that

16

this Court’s procedures were incorrect. Accordingly, Lake Alice Bar is inapposite.

17

As this Court’s discretion to award enhanced damages in this case is statutorily derived, and

18

as this Court remained within its discretion in awarding an enhanced damages award based on the

19

individual circumstances of Defendant and the awards of other courts in this district, this Court did

20

not commit clear error as would justify altering or amending the judgment. Plaintiff has failed to

21

cite any authority—much less binding authority—establishing otherwise. Plaintiff has failed to

22

show anything more than a disagreement with this Court’s exercise of its discretion. Westlands

23

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d at1131. 1

24

1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff also requests that, to the extent necessary, this Court should award damages under 47
U.S.C. § 605, not 47 U.S.C. § 553. See Mot. at 7-8. In this Court’s Order, this 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 4-5. Specifically, the maximum statutory damages permitted for each willful violation of
Section 605 is up to $100,000, 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 this Court declines to award enhanced statutory damages in excess of $50,000,
this Court need not resolve the issue of whether it is more appropriate to apply Section 553 or
6
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

1
2

IV.

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

3

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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: April 17, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

Section 605 in the default judgment context. This 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).
7
Case No.: 13-CV-02004-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT