J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Bolano

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING 32 MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 9/11/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2015)

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. 14-cv-03939-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

9
10

SERGIO MOREIRA MARTINEZ,

[Re: ECF 32]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s Motion to Alter or Amend

14

Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Pl.’s Mot., ECF 32. Plaintiff, having

15

obtained default judgment against defendant Sergio Moreira Martinez in the amount of $4,450,

16

contends that the Court erred in its assessment of damages and requests that the Court amend the

17

judgment to award Plaintiff $22,600 instead. Id.

18

Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment “should not be granted, absent

19

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

20

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

21

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The rule “may not be used to

22

relitigate old matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to

23

entry of final judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008).

24

Plaintiff identifies no new evidence or intervening change in the controlling law warranting

25

reconsideration. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in concluding that though Plaintiff

26

alleged claims under both 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, damages should only be assessed under §

27

553 because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant intercepted satellite transmissions. See

28

Order on Default J. (hereinafter, “Order”) at 5, ECF 30. Plaintiff acknowledges that courts in this

1

district routinely award damages under § 553 where Plaintiff alleges claims under both statutes but

2

fails to raise a reasonable inference through its pleadings or evidence that satellite, as opposed to

3

cable, transmissions were intercepted. Plaintiff fails to distinguish the claims in this case from

4

those in the other well-reasoned cases. Pl.’s Mot. 4-5. Indeed, as this Court observed in its order

5

granting default judgment, Plaintiff’s own investigator did not see a satellite dish on the property.

6

Order at 5. Given the evidentiary failings, there was no error in concluding that the only

7

reasonable inference to be drawn from the pleadings and the evidence is a violation of § 553.

8
9

As to Plaintiff’s objection to the amount of damages awarded, the general rule is that a
default admits liability but not the amount of damages. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557,
560 (9th Cir. 1977); Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1198

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(N.D. Cal. 2000). In determining the amount of damages, courts have considerable discretion to

12

consider competent evidence and other papers submitted with a motion for default judgment.

13

Geddes, 559 F.3d at 560; Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

14

To support its claim for damages, Plaintiff rested on the allegations in the Complaint and the

15

declaration of its investigator, who was in Defendant’s establishment for five minutes. The Court

16

concluded this evidence did not support the requested award of maximum statutory penalties and

17

enhanced damages. Order at 5-8. Plaintiff’s arguments challenging that assessment fail to address

18

its own evidentiary failings and amount to no more than a disagreement with this Court’s

19

discretionary determination, in light of the relevant factors and the evidence before it, of a just

20

statutory award founded in the evidence and with the Court’s declination to impose enhanced

21

damages. That disagreement is no basis for amending or altering a judgment.

22

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is accordingly DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: September 11, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

27
28
2