J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Lorenzana

Filing 31

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying 30 Motion to Alter Judgment. The hearing on the motion, presently scheduled for November 6, 2014, is hereby VACATED.(blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014)

Download PDF
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. 13-cv-05554-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 9 10 ADRIANA L. LORENZANA, [Re: ECF 30] Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. brought the instant action against Defendant 15 Adriana Lorenzana, alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, conversion, and California 16 Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (See Compl. ¶¶ 13-41) Defendant was served 17 with the Complaint on February 10, 2014, and her Answer was due on March 3, 2014. (Proof of 18 Serv., ECF 9) Defendant did not file a timely Answer and has not otherwise appeared. On March 19 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, which was served upon Defendant. (Mot. 20 for Default, ECF 10 at 3) The clerk entered default on March 6, 2014. (Entry of Default, ECF 11) 21 The Court referred the Motion for Default to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and 22 Recommendation on April 11, 2014. On May 13, 2014, Judge Joseph Spero issued his Report and 23 Recommendation, in which he recommended granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default and awarding 24 Plaintiff $2,700 in damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. (Report & Recom., ECF 27 at 4) 25 Plaintiff asked this Court to review de novo Judge Spero’s Report and Recommendation, 26 and objected to three recommendations contained therein: (1) the recommended award of $2,700 27 in statutory damages, (2) the recommended denial of enhanced statutory damages, and (3) the 28 recommended denial of conversion damages. (See ECF 28 at 3) This Court granted in part and 1 denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for De Novo Review, and awarded Plaintiff a total of $3,200: 2 $1,000 in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and $2,200 in damages for conversion. Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend this Court’s judgment, seeking “an increase in the 3 4 statutory damages awarded to Plaintiff as well as an award of enhanced statutory damages for its 5 claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and accomplish the 6 goal of deterrence (both specific and general).” (Mot. to Alter, ECF 30 at 3) 7 II. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment 8 9 LEGAL STANDARD may be granted if “the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) “offers an extraordinary 12 remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 13 resources.” Kona Enterps., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The 14 rule “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that 15 could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 16 471, 485 (2008). 17 18 19 20 III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff has failed to (1) present new evidence; (2) show that the Court committed clear error; or (3) demonstrate a change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff asserts that the damages award will not adequately deter this Defendant, or other 21 prospective pirates, and that the award is so low as to actually encourage piracy. (See Mot. to 22 Alter, ECF 30 at 5 (arguing that the amount awarded “is not an effective deterrent . . . . [In] fact, it 23 is more likely that such an award will have the opposite effect”)) Plaintiff, however, fails to meet 24 the requirements of Rule 59(e), specifically failing to show that the Court committed “clear error.” 25 Plaintiff simply disagrees with the balance struck by the Court in determining the damages award. 26 None of the arguments made by Plaintiff, nor the case law it cites, suggest that this Court should 27 28 2 1 reconsider its previous award.1 $3,200 is a considerable amount for any small business to pay, and 2 the Court finds that such an amount is sufficient to serve as a specific and general deterrent – 3 discouraging both this Defendant and any other prospective pirates from engaging in such 4 unlawful showings of events in the future. Having once again reviewed the record in this case, the 5 Court is satisfied that the award is appropriate. IV. 6 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter is hereby DENIED, and the original 7 8 judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: September 30, 2014 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff has filed at least two other such motions to alter or amend judgment, citing identical case law, in similar matters before this Court. (See Case No. 13-cv-05551-BLF, ECF 31; Case No. 13-cv-05557-BLF, ECF 23) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?