J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Castillo

Filing 12

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 8/10/2015. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 Case No. 14-cv-02391-BAS(RBB) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF No. 11) 15 ABRAHAM CASTILLO, individually and dba CHIVAS DE GUADALJARA BIRREIRIA, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2015, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for 19 default judgment. (ECF No. 9.) The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same 20 day. (ECF No. 10.) On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the 21 judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 11.) 22 No opposition was filed. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 23 motion. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Rule 59(e) permits a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment “no 26 later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Although 27 Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule 28 offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and –1– 14cv2391 1 conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 2 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 4 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 5 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 6 Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Allstate 7 Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011); Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d 8 at 890. However, a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise 9 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 10 raised earlier in the litigation. Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. It does not give 11 parties a “second bite at the apple.” See Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236-37 (9th 12 Cir. 2001). “[A]fter thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate 13 basis for reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-2342-L, 2009 14 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, J.). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff first argues reconsideration is appropriate because the Court’s award 17 of $1,000 in statutory damages “is insufficient to function as an effective deterrent.” 18 (ECF No. 11-1 (“Mot.”) at pp. 3-4.) 19 appropriate because the Court relied, in part, on Northern District of California cases 20 awarding minimal damages, which “are out of sync with other districts in the United 21 States.” (Id. at pp. 5-7.) Lastly, Plaintiff argues reconsideration is proper because, 22 although the Court exercised its discretion to deny enhanced damages, there exists 23 legal and factual authority to make such an award. (Id. at pp. 8-10.) 24 The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. Next, Plaintiff argues reconsideration is While Plaintiff may 25 disagree with the Court’s award, Plaintiff does not present any newly discovered 26 evidence or demonstrate that the Court committed clear error, its decision was 27 manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 28 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy” and the Court does not find it appropriate to grant –2– 14cv2391 1 such relief in this case. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. Accordingly, 2 Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is denied. 3 III. 4 5 6 CONCLUSION & ORDER Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the Court DENIES the motion to alter or amend the judgment. (ECF No. 11.) IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED: August 10, 2015 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –3– 14cv2391

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?