J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Intipuqueno, LLC
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 12 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Defendant 8/4/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/4/2016. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 15-1325
:
INTIPUQUENO, LLC
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case
involving alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934
is a motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff J & J Sports
Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “J & J”).
(ECF No. 12).
court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
105.6.
The
Local Rule
For the following reasons, the motion to reconsider will
be denied.
I.
Background
A more complete recitation of the factual background can be
found
in
the
judgment.
order
entered
court’s
prior
(See ECF No. 10).
granted
Plaintiff’s
judgment
against
Intipuqueno
Restaurant
$4,200.00.
On
May
16,
memorandum
opinion
on
default
That opinion and an accompanying
motion
for
Defendant
default
Intipuqueno,
(“Defendant”),
2016,
judgment
in
Plaintiff
reconsider the damages awarded to Plaintiff.
the
filed
LLC
amount
a
motion
(ECF No. 12).
and
t/a
of
to
II.
Standard of Review
A
motion
for
reconsideration
of
a
final
judgment
filed
within twenty-eight days of the underlying order is governed by
Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e).1
Courts
have
recognized
three
limited
grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Rule
59(e):
(1)
to
accommodate
an
intervening
change
in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available
at
trial;
manifest
or
(3)
to
injustice.
correct
See
clear
United
error
States
of
ex
law
rel.
or
prevent
Becker
v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir.
2002) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d
396, 403 (4th
Cir. 1998)).
A motion for reconsideration is
properly denied when a movant fails to establish one of these
three criteria.
See, e.g., Jarvis v. Enter. Fleet Servs. &
Leasing Co., No. DKC-07-3385, 2010 WL 1929845, at *2 (D.Md. May
11, 2010), aff’d, 408 F.App’x 668 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion
to reconsider because the plaintiff failed to identify valid
circumstances that would cause the district court to alter or
amend its prior opinion).
1
Plaintiff incorrectly characterizes its motion as a motion
for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, subject to the
less stringent standards of Rule 54(b).
(See ECF No. 12-1, at
2).
The court’s prior order, however, granted Plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment, entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff in the amount of $4,200.00, and closed the case. (See
ECF No. 11).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s pending motion is
properly analyzed under Rule 59(e).
2
A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Co.,
148
F.3d
at
403
(quoting
11
Wright,
et
Pac. Ins.
al.,
Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995)); see
also Medlock v. Rumsfeld, 336 F.Supp.2d 452, 470 (D.Md. 2002),
aff’d, 86 F.App’x 665 (4th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (“To the
extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he
is not permitted to do so.
Where a motion does not raise new
arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its mind,’
relief is not authorized.”).
“In general, ‘reconsideration of a
judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly.’”
Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting
Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks the court’s reconsideration of Plaintiff’s
damages, asking the court to include enhanced damages under 47
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(c)(ii).
Plaintiff’s motion, however, does
not satisfy any of the three grounds for reconsideration under
Rule
59(e).
considered
damages.
Plaintiff
by
this
merely
court
repeats
regarding
the
arguments
award
of
previously
enhanced
Those arguments are not only insufficient to prevail
on a motion to reconsider under the stringent standard of Rule
3
59(e),
but
they
have
been
rejected
consistently
by
recent
opinions in this district.
Plaintiff argues that the court should increase the damages
awarded to Plaintiff because the current amount of $4,200.00
“neither
effective
adequately
deterrent.”
compensates
Plaintiff
(ECF
12-1,
No.
at
nor
acts
2).
At
as
an
base,
Plaintiff’s argument fails because it neglects to address any of
the three established grounds on which the court may grant a
motion to reconsider.
Plaintiff points to no intervening case
law that would persuade the court to change its opinion, nor
does Plaintiff point to newly discovered evidence relevant to
the court’s prior opinion.2
The court can only assume then that
Plaintiff attempts to challenge the court’s prior opinion based
on clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.
2
The most persuasive intervening case law on this issue
supports the court’s prior opinion and, in a nearly identical
case, admonishes Plaintiff for ignoring the clear precedent of
this court by continuing to seek excessive enhanced damages
without advancing a non-frivolous argument explaining why a
different result would be warranted.
See J & J Sports Prods.,
Inc. v. Walter Gil t/a Gil’s Restaurant, No. PWG-15-1366, 2016
WL 4089567, at *4 (D.Md. Aug. 2, 2016) (refusing to award
enhanced damages, rebuking J & J for inexplicably failing to
acknowledge clear court precedent on the award of enhanced
damages, and ordering J & J to show cause why it should not be
sanctioned for “yet again seeking maximum enhanced damages
without discussing contrary controlling precedent from this
Court regarding the extent of damages recoverable in this
case”).
Although Judge Grimm issued his opinion in Walter Gil
after Plaintiff filed the pending motion to reconsider, the
opinion reflects the relevant state of the law in this district.
4
Plaintiff fails to show that an award of enhanced damages,
on
top
of
the
award
of
statutory
damages,
is
necessary
to
prevent manifest injustice or correct a clear error of law.
Plaintiff’s
reiteration
disagreement”
insufficient
Hutchinson
with
basis
v.
of
the
for
Staton,
prior
court’s
such
994
an
F.2d
arguments
reveals
decision
and
extraordinary
1076,
1082
a
thus
remedy.
(4th
Cir.
“mere
is
an
See
1993).
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s decision
is brazen given the strong, repeated reproach judges in this
district
have
leveled
against
the
exact
argument
Plaintiff
advances as the basis for reconsideration in this case.
See,
e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. El Rodeo Rest., LLC, No. PJM15-172, 2015 WL 3441995, at *4 (D.Md. May 26, 2015) (“Judges in
this District recently found that J & J has been on notice, at
least
since
Quattrocche,
that
in
a
case
of
non-egregious
willfulness, it was not eligible to recover the maximum damages
authorized by statute . . .”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Rumors, Inc., No. CCB-14-2046, 2014 WL 6675646, at *4 (D.Md.
Nov. 21, 2014) (“Undaunted, J & J ‘has repeatedly filed motions
seeking excessive damages in nearly identical cases, and the
court has consistently addressed the limitations on damages for
the same causes of action brought here.’” (citation omitted)); J
& J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Sabor Latino Rest., Inc., No. PJM-133515, 2014 WL 2964477, at *2 (D.Md. June 27, 2014) (“It is
5
troubling that J & J Sports Productions continues to proceed
without regard to the many opinions written on this issue.”); J
& J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Quattrocche, No. WMN-09-3420, 2010 WL
2302353, at *1 (D.Md. June 7, 2010) (“Plaintiff here has been a
Plaintiff in many nearly identical cases and is on notice as to
the kind of evidence to which the courts look in determining
statutory damages.
Instead of providing such evidence, it has
chosen to argue that the award should be the statutory maximum,
including
enhancement
excessive.”).
.
.
.
This
amount
is
extraordinarily
Plaintiff’s lack of acknowledgment or recognition
of this case law is troubling.3
Plaintiff has not met the high bar it faces to succeed on
its
motion
for
reconsideration
under
Rule
59(e).
Plaintiff
cannot point to a change in controlling law favorable to its
position,
nor
has
it
offered
any
new
evidence.
And
as
discussed, Plaintiff fails to identify any clear error of law or
manifest
injustice
reconsideration.
to
warrant
the
extreme
remedy
of
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met the grounds
for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
3
Plaintiff has, at last, noted that it “takes heed of this
Court’s concerns” regarding its continued requests for excessive
damages.
(ECF No. 12-1, at 5).
Plaintiff’s worry that
requesting less than the statutory maximum would “hamstring” its
efforts in future cases is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s counsel is
strongly urged to take seriously the concerns expressed by
several judges in this district.
6
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to reconsider filed
by Plaintiff will be denied.
Thus, it is this 4th day of August,
2016, by the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s motion to
reconsider (ECF No. 12) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.
The
clerk
will
transmit
copies
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion and this Order to counsel for Plaintiff and directly to
Defendant.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
7
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?