Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Munoz et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The hearing scheduled for 1/29/2015 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/23/2015. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-05926 EJD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
JUDGMENT

v.
13
14

EFREN MUNOZ, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Defendants.
15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant

18

Efren Munoz, doing business as Taqueria Mi Tierra and Taqueria Mi Tierra, Inc. (hereinafter

19

“Defendant”), illegally intercepted and broadcasted a sports event in violation of Plaintiff’s

20

licensing rights. Defendant failed to defend and, on August 20, 2014, this court granted Plaintiff’s

21

application for default judgment and awarded total damages of $2,900 for a violation of 47 U.S.C.

22

§ 605 and conversion. See Docket Item No. 20. A judgment consistent with the order was filed

23

the same day. See Docket Item No. 21.

24

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant

25

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Docket Item No. 22. The court has carefully

26

reviewed this unopposed motion and finds it suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant

27

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for January 29, 2015, will be

28

1
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05926 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

1

vacated. Because the court does not find error in the default judgment, Plaintiff’s motion will be

2

denied for the reasons explained below.

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may be granted on the following

4
5

grounds: “(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

6

judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously

7

unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the

8

amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron,

9

634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). A successful Rule 59(e) motion is an exception, not the
norm, because it “offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

12

(9th Cir. 2000).

13

III.

14

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues under Rule 59(e) that the court’s damages analysis was both factually and

15

legally flawed. Specifically, Plaintiff contends (1) the amount of damages is insufficient to

16

compensate its injury or to deter future signal piracy, (2) that Plaintiff should have received a

17

greater amount of statutory damages because it sufficiently identified Defendant’s manner of

18

interception, and (3) the damages award is “out of sync” with Ninth Circuit dicta. These

19

arguments are unpersuasive.

20

A.

21

As noted, Plaintiff believes the amount of the judgment is neither adequate compensation

Compensation and Deterrence

22

nor an effective deterrent. This court has addressed, and rejected, this exact argument in a similar

23

case involving Plaintiff. In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lorenzana, No. 5:13-cv-05925 EJD,

24

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154973, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014), the court explained that an

25

amount of statutory damages exceeding the cost to purchase a license properly accounts for

26

Plaintiff’s loss. As to the issue of general deterrence, the court found the $2,150 awarded to

27

Plaintiff in that case did not create a “perverse incentive” for Lorenzana or other potential

28

2
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05926 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

1

offenders to break the law because “lawful conduct would still be less expensive than unlawful

2

conduct - by half the price when all is said and done.” Lorenzana, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154973,

3

at *5. Moreover, a deterrent effect was evident because “$2,150 is a sizable amount not only for

4

[Lorenzana], but also for the other small businesses who are routinely sued in this court for this

5

particular type of conduct.” Id. at *5-6.

6

The reasoning from Lorenzana is equally applicable here. Since Plaintiff’s default

7

presentation did not contain anything extraordinary, such as evidence to suggest that Defendant’s

8

improper interception of the event was motivated by commercial or private financial gain,

9

combined statutory and enhanced damages of $1,950 more than compensates Plaintiff for the loss
of the $950 licensing fee. In addition, the total award of $2,900 is sufficient to deter other small

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

businesses, like Defendant, from illegally intercepting future events. Accordingly, the amount of

12

damages was not error.

13

B.

14

The court awarded statutory damages of $1,000 under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Plaintiff

Statutory Damages

15

believes it should have received a higher amount because it provided evidence to show that

16

Defendant intercepted the event over a satellite signal. This argument is misplaced. It is clear

17

from the order that the court considered the affidavit of Plaintiff’s investigator and concluded, like

18

Plaintiff did, that Defendant had intercepted the event over a satellite signal. For this reason,

19

Plaintiff received damages under § 605, which is routinely applied to unlawful interceptions of

20

satellite signals, as opposed to 47 U.S.C. § 553, which is more often applied to the unlawful

21

interception of cable broadcasts. J & J Sports Prods. v. Manzano, No. C-08-01872 RMW, 2008

22

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84931, at *6-7, 2008 WL 4542962 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008) (“A signal pirate

23

violates section 553 if he intercepts a cable signal, he violates section 605 if he intercepts a

24

satellite broadcast.”). Thus, since the court reached the same factual conclusion as Plaintiff and

25

chose the statutory authority most appropriate to the default judgment submission, Plaintiff has not

26

shown error in the application of the law or in the interpretation of the evidence.

27
28

Plaintiff seems to take issue with the decision to award only the minimum amount
3
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05926 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

provided by the statute. But the court explained why, in exercising its discretion under § 605, only

2

a minimal damages award was justified. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) (providing that

3

damages “of not less than $ 1,000 or more than $ 10,000” may be awarded “as the court considers

4

just”). Indeed, Plaintiff had only conducted a 15-minute investigation and provided a small

5

amount of indefinite evidence in support of its application for default judgment. It was therefore

6

appropriate to scale statutory damages to the amount of provable loss, which in this case was the

7

$950 cost of the license. See Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Zavala, No. C 07-5925 MMC,

8

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79647, at *3, 2008 WL 3875272 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2008) (“A traditional

9

method of determining statutory damages is to estimate either the loss incurred by the plaintiff or

10

the profits made by the defendants.”). Nothing submitted with the instant motion gives cause to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

change that observation or to award anything more than the $1,000 statutory minimum. For that

12

reason, there is no basis to modify the amount of statutory damages.

13

C.

14

Plaintiff cites Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347 (1999), in

Ninth Circuit Dicta

15

support of its proposition that the damages award is “out of sync” with suggestions from the Ninth

16

Circuit. As the court understands the argument, Plaintiff contends the Ninth Circuit, in dicta,

17

approved of “five figure judgments” in signal piracy cases. Having reviewed the case, however,

18

the court does not concur that the amount of damages ordered in this case is inconsistent with the

19

Ninth Circuit’s comments in Lake Alice Bar. While the passage cited by Plaintiff does mention

20

“five figure judgments,” it also clarifies that the amount of damages ultimately awarded will

21

depend on the particular circumstances at issue. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d at 350 (“Depending on

22

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

23

figure judgment puts a bar out of business.”). The circumstances that were presented here simply

24

do not justify a five-figure award.

25

IV.

26

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Docket

27

Item No. 22) is DENIED.

28

4
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05926 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

1

The hearing scheduled for January 29, 2015, is VACATED.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

7
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

5
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05926 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT