J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Salgadobarajas

Filing 24

Order denying 23 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 10/9/2014.(blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)

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. 13-cv-05557-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SALVADOR SALGADOBARAJAS,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT
[Re: ECF 23]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
In this telecast-interception action, a default judgment has been entered against Defendant.

13
14

Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend the judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is

15

DENIED.

16

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, having the domestic commercial exhibition rights to

17
18

broadcast the “Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Márquez, IV Welterweight Fight Program”

19

(“Program”), brought the instant action against Defendant, owner of a commercial establishment,

20

Mexicalis, for intercepting the Program unlawfully and intentionally exhibiting it for the purpose

21

of direct or indirect commercial advantage. The underlying facts of this action are detailed in the

22

July 3, 2014 order granting default judgment. Order Granting Default J., ECF 21. Defendant did

23

not respond to the complaint and final judgment was entered against him in the amount of

24

$4,877.50. This judgment was composed of a $1,000 award in statutory damages, a $2,200 award

25

in damages for conversion, and $1,677.50 award for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff now

26

moves to alter or amend the judgment amount. Pl.’s Mot. to Alter, ECF 23.

27
28

II.

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

1

not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

2

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

3

controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The rule

4

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

5

been raised prior to entry of final judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5

6

(2008).

7

III.

8
9

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff identifies no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error of law by the

Court in support of its motion. Plaintiff argues that the $1,000 statutory damages award is
insufficient to deter pirating of telecommunications and states that other districts have awarded

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

substantial awards in comparable cases. Pl.’s Mot. to Alter 5. Plaintiff previously presented

12

similar arguments before this Court. Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. 10, ECF 13. The Court rejected

13

those arguments then, Order at 7, and nothing in Plaintiff’s motion now leads the Court to detract

14

from that conclusion. $3,200 is a considerable penalty for a small business establishment like

15

Defendant’s, and the Court finds that such an amount is sufficient to serve as a specific and

16

general deterrent to this and other potential defendants.

17

In asking for enhanced statutory damages, Plaintiff contends that its allegations of willful

18

display for direct or indirect commercial advantage should be deemed admitted under the rules

19

governing default. Pl.’s Mot. to Alter 6. Although the well-pleaded allegations in a complaint are

20

sufficient to establish liability on default, the allegations regarding the amount of damages are not

21

controlling. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Because the

22

allegations of commercial purpose bear directly on the amount of damages, Plaintiff’s burden of

23

proving the unlawful exhibition was for direct or indirect commercial advantage is not excused by

24

Defendant’s default, see Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1198

25

(N.D. Cal. 2000), nor is it proven by a bouncer’s out of context remark that “the Pacquiao fight is

26

starting,” see Pl.’s Mot. 5-6. See also Decl. of Gary Gravelyn, ECF 13-3.

27
28

Finally, Plaintiff’s arguments that this Court’s award is “out of sync with the suggestions
of the Ninth Circuit,” Pl.’s Mot. 7, fails to present controlling case law compelling a higher award
2

1

and fails to persuade. The court in Kingvision v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (9th Cir. 1999),

2

upon which Plaintiff relies, acknowledged that it would be within a court’s discretion to reduce

3

the judgment, if supported by the evidence. See id. at 350. As such, this is hardly controlling or

4

persuasive case law mandating a higher award.
In sum, Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, any intervening change

5
6

in the controlling law, nor any persuasive evidence that this Court committed clear error in its

7

prior order. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e), and its Motion to Alter or

8

Amend Judgment is DENIED.

9

IV.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or

Amend Judgment is DENIED, and the original judgment is hereby AFFIRMED

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: October 9, 2014

15
16

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3