TMTV, Corp. v. MASS Productions,Inc, et al
Filing
509
OPINION AND ORDER re 487 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court DENIES the defendants' motion to reconsider. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 04/09/2012. (brc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
TMTV, CORP.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL NO. 00-1338 (FAB)
v.
MASS PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER1
BESOSA, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by
defendants Mass Productions, Inc., Emanuel Logroño (“Logroño”), and
Gilda Santini (collectively, “defendants”) (Docket No. 487), the
plaintiff’s opposition (Docket No. 492), and defendants’ reply to
plaintiff’s opposition (Docket No. 499). For the reasons set forth
below, defendants’ motion to reconsider is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
I.
Background
In
1997,
the
production
company,
Creative
Relief
Corp.
(“CRC”), created the sitcom 20 Pisos de Historia to fill time on
its new variety show.
(Docket No. 481, p. 2.)
Plaintiff TMTV
Corp. (“TMTV”) is the successor in interest to CRC. Id. Defendant
Logroño was a co-host on CRC’s variety show.
1
Id.
The sitcom was
Elizabeth Gray, a second-year student at the University of
New Hampshire School of Law, assisted in the preparation of this
Opinion and Order.
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
2
developed by CRC, two scriptwriters, and defendant Logroño, and it
followed the lives of residents of a condominium.
Id. at pp. 2-3.
On November 7, 1997, 20 Pisos de Historia first aired on the WKAQ
television station.
Id. at p. 4.
In December 1999, Logroño left
the TMTV the network to work for its rival, WKAQ.
Logroño
starred
in
El
Condominio,
a
sitcom
Id.
with
At WKAQ,
the
same
characters, actors, and a similar location as 20 Pisos de Historia.
Id. at pp. 4-5.
On March 15, 2000, plaintiff TMTV filed a complaint against
the
defendants
alleging
television programs.
Raymond
L.
Acosta
copyright
infringement
Id. at p. 2.
granted
regarding
the
On November 24, 2004, Judge
summary
judgment
in
favor
of
the
plaintiff, finding that the defendants’ sitcom, El Condominio, was
an unauthorized derivative work.
(Docket 99.)
remaining was damages, which was set for trial.
The only issue
Id. at p. 39.
On
August 22, 2007, plaintiff TMTV filed a motion requesting the
impoundment of video tapes containing the infringing television
show. (Docket No. 293.)
On September 6, 2007, Judge Acosta issued
an order which granted plaintiff’s motion and provided in part that
Televicentro de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Televicentro”), a third party,
should
“preserve
and
safe-keep”
the
tapes
“until
this
Court
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
otherwise disposes.”2
the
jury
awarded
3
(Docket No. 315.)
TMTV
$772,079.29.
Id.
On January 30, 2009,
(Docket
No.
405.)
Subsequently, on March 27, 2009, Judge Acosta entered an amended
judgment
reducing
TMTV’s
award
to
$72,079.29
because
of
the
$700,000 settlement reached in Civil No. 05-1621 (JP).
(Docket
No. 434 at p. 1.)
(Docket
Both parties filed timely appeals.
No. 481 at p.7.)
On June 13, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered
final judgment, upholding the district court’s ruling that TMTV was
the owner of 20 Pisos de Historia and the derivative work El
Condominio.
(Docket 481.)
The First Circuit Court of Appeals
issued the formal mandate of the court on July 15, 2011.
No. 484.)
(Docket
On that same date, plaintiff TMTV filed a motion
requesting the release of the previously impounded video tapes.
(Docket No. 483.)
motion.
motion
On July 22, 2011, this Court granted TMTV’s
(Docket No. 486.)
for
reconsideration
On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a
of
the
Court’s
ruling.
(Docket
No. 487.) Defendants argue that reconsideration is proper because:
(1) the plaintiff’s motion was not opposed sooner because of
“inadvertence,” (2) the plaintiff “omitted several crucial facts”
2
Specifically, Televicentro was ordered to: (1) submit an
inventory of the tapes and other recordings of the sitcom El
Condominio in its custody and/or control, (2) preserve and protect
said tapes and recordings, and (3) refrain from “altering, editing,
assigning, disposing, licensing, selling, transferring and/or
destroying the tapes and other recordings.” (Docket No. 315.)
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
4
in its motion for release of the tapes, and (3) the disposition of
a separate civil action should prevent the plaintiff from acquiring
the tapes.
Id.
Subsequently, on August 9, 2011, TMTV filed an
opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
On August 16, 2011, defendants replied.
(Docket No. 492.)
(Docket No. 499.)
In
their reply, the defendants argue that (1) the plaintiff’s failure
to request the tapes in their complaint or pre-trial order and res
judicata prevent the plaintiff from recovering, and (2) the Court
must consider the possibility of a future infringement on the
rights of non-parties to deny the plaintiff’s request.
II.
Id.
Motion for Reconsideration
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a
‘motion for reconsideration’ in haec verba.”
Lavespere v. Niagara
Mach. & Tool Works Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied 510 U.S. 859, abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid
Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1775-76 (5th Cir. 1994).
Those motions
are usually decided under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
See In re
Spittler, 831 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Notwithstanding that
[appellant]
did
not
denominate
any
particular
rule
as
the
springboard for its reconsideration motion, it is settled in this
circuit that a motion which asked the court to modify its earlier
disposition of a case because of an allegedly erroneous legal
result is brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).”); Fisher v. Kadant,
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
5
Inc., 589 F.3d 505, 512 (1st Cir. 2009) (noting that plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration implicated either Rule 59(e) or 60(b)).
A successful Rule 59(e)3 motion requires that a party “clearly
establish a manifest error of law or [] present newly discovered
evidence.” Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, No. 11-1101, 2012
U.S. App. Lexis 5564, at * 29-30 (1st Cir. Mar. 16, 2012).
The
motion must not “raise arguments which could, and should, have been
made before judgment [was] issued.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992) (internal
quotations omitted).
Motions filed pursuant to Rule 59 are not
“confined to the six specific grounds for relief found in Rule
60(b).” Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 281,
284 (1st Cir. 1993).
Conversely, the Rule 60(b)4 standard requires
that a party “demonstrate ‘at a bare minimum, that his motion is
timely;
that
exceptional
circumstances
exist,
favoring
extraordinary relief; that if the judgment is set aside, he has the
3
Rule 59(e) provides in pertinent part that “A motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after
the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
4
Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part that:
“On motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
for the following reasons [among others]: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; . . . (3) fraud (whether previously
called
i n t rinsic
or
extrinsic),
misrepresentation,
or
misconduct
by
an
opposing party; . . . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)”
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
6
[ability] to mount a potentially meritorious claim or defense; and
that no unfair prejudice will accrue to the opposing parties should
the motion be granted.’”
Fisher, 589 F.3d at 512.
A motion is
characterized pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) based upon its
filing date.
Perez-Perez, 993 F.2d at 284.
“If a motion is served
within [twenty-eight]5 days of the rendition of judgment, the
motion will ordinarily fall under Rule 59(e).” Id. Motions served
after the twenty-eight days are considered under Rule 60(b).
Id.
The Court will first determine under which rule the defendants’
motion should be regarded.
Then the Court will determine whether
reconsideration is proper.
III. Legal Analysis
1.
The Defendants’ Motion Implicates Rule 59(e)
The
defendants’
motion
characterized as a Rule 59(e) motion.
for
reconsideration
is
The motion was filed within
the twenty-eight day time period provided by Rule 59. Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e); see also Perez-Perez, 993 F.2d at 284 (“the litigant who
gets his motion in on time enjoys the . . . relief provided by
Rule 59 . . . .”).
5
Despite an apparent attempt to present the
A 2009 Amendment increased the filing time period from ten
to twenty-eight days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
7
reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion, the calendar prevails.6
See Perez-Perez, 993 F.2d at 284 (“a timely filed motion [for
reconsideration] could be treated as filed under Rule 59 even
though it was . . . filed pursuant to Rule 60(b).”) (internal
citations
omitted).
Because
the
defendants’
motion
for
reconsideration was timely filed, Rule 59(e) is implicated for the
analysis.
See
id.
The
Court
will
now
determine
whether
reconsideration is proper.
2.
Reconsideration of the Return Order is not Proper
The defendants fail to persuade the Court to reconsider
the return order.
See Soto-Padro v. Pub. Bldgs. Auth., No. 10-
2413, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, at *21 (1st Cir. Mar. 12, 2012)
(commenting that judges’ discretion and the high standards of the
rule make it “exceedingly difficult for a litigant to win an
Rule 59(e) motion.”) (internal citations omitted). Reconsideration
of
the
return
defendants’
order
motion
is
nor
not
proper
because
their
reply
“clearly
(1)
neither
the
establish[es]
a
manifest error of law or [] present[s] newly discovered evidence,”
and (2) the argument should have been raised earlier.
Markel Am.
Ins. Co., No. 11-1101, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5564, at *29-30; see
6
Defendant argues that “reconsideration is proper as
Plaintiff omitted several crucial facts . . .”, seeming to
implicate Rule 60(b)(3) which allows for relief due to “fraud
(whether
previously
called
intrinsic
or
extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; . . . .”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); (Docket No. 487, p. 2, ¶ 4.)
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
8
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 978 F.2d at 16 (finding district court’s
refusal to amend judgment proper where party failed to raise a
timely argument, and “the argument neither reveal[ed] a manifest
error of law nor present[ed] newly discovered evidence.”).
defendants argue that reconsideration is proper because:
plaintiff’s
motion
was
not
timely
opposed
The
(1) the
because
of
“inadvertence,” (2) the plaintiff “omitted several crucial facts”
in its motion for release of the tapes, (3) the Court must consider
the possibility of future infringement by non-parties to the
present
case
to
deny
the
plaintiff’s
request,
and
(4)
the
plaintiff’s failure to request the tapes in their complaint or pretrial order and res judicata prevent the plaintiff from recovering.
(Docket Nos. 487 & 499.)
In regards to the defendants’ first
argument, the Court does not consider “inadvertence” a valid excuse
for failing to file a proper motion.
See Crispin-Taveras v.
Municipality of Carolina, 647 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011) (“A party’s
failure, on account of ignorance or neglect, to timely oppose a
motion in the district court constitutes forfeiture.”) (citing
Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz-Velez, 341 F.3d 86, 102 (1st Cir. 2003)).
As to their second argument, that the plaintiff “omitted several
crucial facts” in its motion, the defendants fail to include any
citation to persuasive or controlling case law.
No. 487.)
(See Docket
As the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated,
“[j]udges are not mind-readers, so parties must spell out their
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
9
issues clearly, highlighting the relevant facts and analyzing onpoint authority.”
Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d
168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011).
This Court will not engage in the task
of developing a factual record and fleshing out legal argumentation
- that is the responsibility of the party requesting relief.
See
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (where
issues
have
been
“adverted
to
in
a
perfunctory
manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, [they] are
deemed waived.”)
The defendants’ third argument is equally unpersuasive.
The defendants claim that the potential for a future infringement
and
resulting
litigation
should
receiving the video tapes.
prevent
the
plaintiff
(Docket Nos. 487 & 499.)
from
The mere
prospect of possible litigation by a non-party to the current claim
need not be considered.
See Latin Am. Music Co. v. Archdiocese,
499 F.3d 32, 46 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[A] party generally must assert
his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to
relief on
the
legal
rights
or
interests
of
third
parties.”)
(quoting Kowalski v. Tesmer, 542 U.S. 125, 129 (2004)).
Lastly,
the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s failure to request the
tapes in its complaint or pre-trial order and res judicata prevent
the
plaintiff
from
recovering.
(Docket
Nos.
487
&
499.)
Specifically, the defendants claim that the plaintiff did not
request the return of the tapes prior to entry of the final
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
judgment.
(Docket No. 499.)
10
To the contrary, the plaintiff filed
the motion requesting the tapes on July 15, 2011, the same date
upon which the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued its formal
mandate.
(See Docket Nos. 483 & 484.)
“[I]t is the date on which
the mandate is issued which determines when the district court
reacquires jurisdiction for further proceedings.” United States v.
Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 509 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S.
1004 (1985); see also Hickey v. Wellesley Pub. Schs., Nos. 94-1642,
94-1965, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1392, at *1, (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 1995)
(“The effect of the mandate is to bring the proceedings in a case
on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the
jurisdiction of this Court, returning it to the forum from whence
it
came.”).
Furthermore,
res
judicata is not
an applicable
argument as it is an affirmative defense used when responding to a
pleading to prevent the re-litigation of claims.
Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(c)(1); see Rodriguez-Torres v. Gov’t. Dev. Bank, No. 10-2228,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38194, at *4 (D.P.R. Apr. 5, 2011) (“res
judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated on
the earlier action but also those claims that could have been
litigated therein.”) (emphasis in original) (internal citations
omitted).
Based upon the above facts, the Court finds that the
defendants fail to establish a manifest error of law.
Moreover,
the defendants “could, and should, have” made their arguments
earlier.
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 978 F.2d at 16.
On July, 15,
Civil No. 00-1338 (FAB)
11
2011, plaintiff TMTV filed a motion requesting the release of the
previously impounded infringing video tapes.
(Docket No. 483.)
The defendants failed timely to object to that motion, pursuant to
this Court’s Local Rules; thus, the Court need not consider the
defendants’ arguments. Loc. Rule 7(b); see U.S. v. Allen, 573 F.3d
42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (“[m]otions for reconsideration are not to
be used as ‘a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural
failures [or] allow a party to advance arguments that could and
should
have
judgment.’”)
defendants’
been
presented
(internal
failure
to
to
the
citations
raise
its
district
omitted).
arguments
court
prior
Considering
earlier,
lack
to
the
of
supporting legal analysis, and inability to establish a manifest
error of law, the defendants have failed to persuade the Court to
reconsider its previous ruling.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the defendants’
motion to reconsider.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, April 9, 2012.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?