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

Filing 33

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 HEARING; AND DENYING 31 MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/15/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-05551-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant.

[Re: ECF 31]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 18,
2014 HEARING; AND DENYING
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

12
13
14

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought the instant action for

15

conversion and unlawful interception of a telecast against Defendant Luis Rodriguez

16

(“Defendant”), operator of Los Jarritos, a Mexican restaurant. Defendant Rodriguez was served

17

with the Amended Complaint on March 11, 2014 and his answer was due on April 1, 2014. (Proof

18

of Serv., ECF 15) Defendant did not file an answer and did not appear. On June 27, 2014, the

19

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, awarding $1,000 in statutory damages under

20

47 U.S.C. § 605, $4,200 in damages for conversion under California Civil Code § 3336, and

21

$2,112.50 in attorney’s fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). (Order, ECF 29)

22

Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend the judgment, seeking “an increase in the statutory

23

damages awarded to Plaintiff as well as an award of enhanced statutory damages for its claim

24

under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and accomplish the goal of

25

deterrence (both specific and general).” (Mot. to Am. J., at 3, ECF 31)

26

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion is appropriate for disposition without oral

27

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing previously set for September 18, 2014

28

is hereby VACATED.

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment

2
3

may be granted if “the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

4

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St.

5

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) “offers an extraordinary

6

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

7

resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The

8

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

9

could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

471, 485 (2008).
III.

DISCUSSION

12

Plaintiff has failed to (1) present new evidence; (2) show that the Court committed clear

13

error; or (3) demonstrate a change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or

14

amend the judgment is denied.

15

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that the damages and fees awarded do not adequately address

16

deterrence, and that the award is low enough to actively encourage piracy. (Mot. to Am. J., at 4-8,

17

ECF 31) However, this argument fails to meet the requirements of Rule 59(e). The cases cited by

18

Plaintiff could have been raised prior to entry of judgment, and nothing in Plaintiff’s motion leads

19

this Court to reconsider its previous award. Moreover, $7,312.50 is a considerable amount for a

20

small business.

21

Plaintiff’s motion also asserts that “[t]his Court’s damages award is out of sync with the

22

suggestions of the Ninth Circuit” and cites to Kingvision v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (9th Cir.

23

1999), a case in which the Ninth Circuit stated “a low five figure judgment may be a stiff fine that

24

deters [businesses from pirating telecasts].” (Mot. to Am. J., at 8, ECF 31) The Court has

25

conducted an exhaustive review of damages awarded to Plaintiff in similar cases in this District.

26

While some courts have awarded greater amounts, other courts have awarded less. Having once

27

again reviewed the record in this case, the Court remains satisfied that the award is appropriate.

28
2

1
2
3

IV.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is hereby

DENIED.

4
5
6
7

Dated: September 15, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3