1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-02714-SI
8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR 9 v. AMEND JUDGMENT
10 BREWS & BRATS, INC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment entered into on March 14 10, 2023. Dkt. No. 33. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this matter is 15 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 23, 16 2023. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED. 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff, the exclusive licensor of rights to exhibit certain closed circuit and pay-per-view 20 sports programming, sued defendants for showing a boxing match (the “Program”) in a commercial 21 establishment without a license. Compl. ¶¶ 14–24. Plaintiff owned exclusive nationwide 22 commercial distribution rights to the Program. Id. ¶ 26. The complaint alleged liability under the 23 Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, et seq., for receiving, intercepting, and 24 assisting in the receipt or interception of licensed programming; common law tort of conversion; 25 and violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Id. ¶¶ 25– 57. Plaintiff's 26 hired private investigator filed an affidavit stating he was present in defendants’ establishment on 27 the evening of the fight, May 8, 2021, and saw the program being broadcasted on three televisions. 1 of 40 people and there were 29–32 people in the building, with approximately 15 guests sitting 2 outside. Id. 3 Plaintiff moved for default judgment on November 23, 2022, seeking $3,600 in statutory 4 damages for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), an additional $18,000 in “enhanced” 5 statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and $1,200 in damages for conversion. Dkt. 6 No. 22. On March 10, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and awarded 7 $1,000 in statutory damages and $1,200 in damages for conversion. Dkt. No. 28. The Court did 8 not award enhanced statutory damages. Id. 9 Plaintiff now moves for the Court to alter or amend its judgment, arguing that the award of 10 $1,000 in statutory damages and the denial of enhanced statutory damages were clear error. Dkt. 11 No. 33 at 2. 12 13 DISCUSSION 14 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is presented 15 with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial 16 decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 17 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff argues that the Court 18 committed clear error. Dkt. No. 33 at 3 19 . 20 A. Statutory Damages Award 21 Plaintiff first argues that the statutory damages award of $1,000 was clear error because it 22 was $200 less than the commercial fee to license the Program, and therefore resulted in a windfall 23 to defendants. Id. Yet plaintiff goes on to acknowledge that “the addition of the conversion award 24 removes the ‘windfall’ status.” Id. at 4. Similarly, plaintiff argues that the award was insufficient 25 to deter future misconduct by defendants. Id. at 7–8. But an award of $1,000 in statutory damages, 26 coupled with the cost of the Program in damages for conversion, is an appropriate “sanction that 27 deters but does not destroy.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 1 in clear error. 2 3 B. Enhanced Statutory Damages 4 Plaintiff argues that the Court clearly erred in denying enhanced statutory damages because 5 the Court did not credit plaintiff’s assertion that defendants acted willfully and sought to profit from 6 their conduct. Dkt. No. 33 at 6–7. Enhanced statutory damages may be awarded at the Court’s 7 discretion if the Court finds that “the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct 8 or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). To 9 support its argument for enhanced statutory damages, plaintiff points to conclusory statements made 10 in an affidavit attached to the motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 33 at 5. The affidavit, by 11 plaintiff’s president, asserts that signal piracy is necessarily willful and speculates as to several ways 12 signal piracy can occur. Dkt. No. 22-3 ¶¶ 9–10. But it includes no evidence as to willfulness or the 13 method of interception in this case. Id. The affidavit also includes speculative arguments that 14 establishments seek to profit by pirating programs without advertising them, charging cover fees, or 15 increasing food and drink costs. Id. at ¶¶ 15–19. Again, these arguments contain no factual 16 allegations specific to this case. Id. 17 Rather than allege facts showing that defendants acted “willfully and for purposes of direct 18 or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” plaintiff asks the Court to make an 19 inference based on the very lack of evidence. The Court will not do so. See J & J Sports Prods., 20 Inc. v. Seldner, No. C10-5137 TEH, 2011 WL 2650961, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (“[T]he mere 21 assertion that a defendant acted willfully is insufficient to justify enhanced damages.”); J & J Sports 22 Prods., Inc. v. Guzman, 2009 WL 1034218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (noting that if a violation 23 “were per se willful, then there would be no difference between statutory damages and any willful 24 enhancement”). 25 Plaintiff also argues that the Court applied the wrong legal standard in declining to award 26 statutory damages. Dkt. No. 33 at 5–6. Citing the Court’s finding that there was a lack of evidence 27 of “advertising, cover charge, [and] repeat offender status,” plaintiff argues that “it was error for the 1 Plaintiff misunderstands the Court’s decision. The Court declined to award statutory damages 2 || because it found there was no evidence defendants acted “willfully and for purposes of direct or 3 indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Dkt. No. 28 at 4-5. This is the very 4 standard set forth by statute as a threshold requirement for enhanced statutory damages.! 47 U.S.C. 5 § 605(e)(3)(C)ai). The other factors discussed by the Court, including the lack of evidence 6 || defendants were repeat offenders, the fact that the program was shown at the back of the venue with 7 a small number of people in attendance, the lack of a cover charge or non-conclusory evidence of 8 || profit, were merely factors the Court considered in making its damages determination. 9 § 605(e)3)C)MAD. 10 Finally, plaintiff seems to argue that the Court should have awarded enhanced statutory 11 damages because two other district courts have done so in unrelated cases. Dkt. No. 33 at 5-7. That a 12 other district courts have come to different conclusions in unrelated cases, which have no
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-02714-SI
8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR 9 v. AMEND JUDGMENT
10 BREWS & BRATS, INC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment entered into on March 14 10, 2023. Dkt. No. 33. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this matter is 15 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 23, 16 2023. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED. 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff, the exclusive licensor of rights to exhibit certain closed circuit and pay-per-view 20 sports programming, sued defendants for showing a boxing match (the “Program”) in a commercial 21 establishment without a license. Compl. ¶¶ 14–24. Plaintiff owned exclusive nationwide 22 commercial distribution rights to the Program. Id. ¶ 26. The complaint alleged liability under the 23 Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, et seq., for receiving, intercepting, and 24 assisting in the receipt or interception of licensed programming; common law tort of conversion; 25 and violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Id. ¶¶ 25– 57. Plaintiff's 26 hired private investigator filed an affidavit stating he was present in defendants’ establishment on 27 the evening of the fight, May 8, 2021, and saw the program being broadcasted on three televisions. 1 of 40 people and there were 29–32 people in the building, with approximately 15 guests sitting 2 outside. Id. 3 Plaintiff moved for default judgment on November 23, 2022, seeking $3,600 in statutory 4 damages for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II), an additional $18,000 in “enhanced” 5 statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and $1,200 in damages for conversion. Dkt. 6 No. 22. On March 10, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and awarded 7 $1,000 in statutory damages and $1,200 in damages for conversion. Dkt. No. 28. The Court did 8 not award enhanced statutory damages. Id. 9 Plaintiff now moves for the Court to alter or amend its judgment, arguing that the award of 10 $1,000 in statutory damages and the denial of enhanced statutory damages were clear error. Dkt. 11 No. 33 at 2. 12 13 DISCUSSION 14 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is presented 15 with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial 16 decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 17 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff argues that the Court 18 committed clear error. Dkt. No. 33 at 3 19 . 20 A. Statutory Damages Award 21 Plaintiff first argues that the statutory damages award of $1,000 was clear error because it 22 was $200 less than the commercial fee to license the Program, and therefore resulted in a windfall 23 to defendants. Id. Yet plaintiff goes on to acknowledge that “the addition of the conversion award 24 removes the ‘windfall’ status.” Id. at 4. Similarly, plaintiff argues that the award was insufficient 25 to deter future misconduct by defendants. Id. at 7–8. But an award of $1,000 in statutory damages, 26 coupled with the cost of the Program in damages for conversion, is an appropriate “sanction that 27 deters but does not destroy.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 1 in clear error. 2 3 B. Enhanced Statutory Damages 4 Plaintiff argues that the Court clearly erred in denying enhanced statutory damages because 5 the Court did not credit plaintiff’s assertion that defendants acted willfully and sought to profit from 6 their conduct. Dkt. No. 33 at 6–7. Enhanced statutory damages may be awarded at the Court’s 7 discretion if the Court finds that “the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct 8 or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). To 9 support its argument for enhanced statutory damages, plaintiff points to conclusory statements made 10 in an affidavit attached to the motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 33 at 5. The affidavit, by 11 plaintiff’s president, asserts that signal piracy is necessarily willful and speculates as to several ways 12 signal piracy can occur. Dkt. No. 22-3 ¶¶ 9–10. But it includes no evidence as to willfulness or the 13 method of interception in this case. Id. The affidavit also includes speculative arguments that 14 establishments seek to profit by pirating programs without advertising them, charging cover fees, or 15 increasing food and drink costs. Id. at ¶¶ 15–19. Again, these arguments contain no factual 16 allegations specific to this case. Id. 17 Rather than allege facts showing that defendants acted “willfully and for purposes of direct 18 or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” plaintiff asks the Court to make an 19 inference based on the very lack of evidence. The Court will not do so. See J & J Sports Prods., 20 Inc. v. Seldner, No. C10-5137 TEH, 2011 WL 2650961, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (“[T]he mere 21 assertion that a defendant acted willfully is insufficient to justify enhanced damages.”); J & J Sports 22 Prods., Inc. v. Guzman, 2009 WL 1034218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (noting that if a violation 23 “were per se willful, then there would be no difference between statutory damages and any willful 24 enhancement”). 25 Plaintiff also argues that the Court applied the wrong legal standard in declining to award 26 statutory damages. Dkt. No. 33 at 5–6. Citing the Court’s finding that there was a lack of evidence 27 of “advertising, cover charge, [and] repeat offender status,” plaintiff argues that “it was error for the 1 Plaintiff misunderstands the Court’s decision. The Court declined to award statutory damages 2 || because it found there was no evidence defendants acted “willfully and for purposes of direct or 3 indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Dkt. No. 28 at 4-5. This is the very 4 standard set forth by statute as a threshold requirement for enhanced statutory damages.! 47 U.S.C. 5 § 605(e)(3)(C)ai). The other factors discussed by the Court, including the lack of evidence 6 || defendants were repeat offenders, the fact that the program was shown at the back of the venue with 7 a small number of people in attendance, the lack of a cover charge or non-conclusory evidence of 8 || profit, were merely factors the Court considered in making its damages determination. 9 § 605(e)3)C)MAD. 10 Finally, plaintiff seems to argue that the Court should have awarded enhanced statutory 11 damages because two other district courts have done so in unrelated cases. Dkt. No. 33 at 5-7. That a 12 other district courts have come to different conclusions in unrelated cases, which have no
13 precedential effect on this Court, does not support a holding that this Court committed clear error.” © CONCLUSION 16 Because plaintiff has failed to show that the Court committed clear error in awarding $1,000
= 17 in statutory damages and denying enhanced statutory damages, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 20, 2023 20 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 22 3 ' The Court notes that the statute does not in any case require the Court to award enhanced statutory damages but gives the Court the discretion to do so if it makes the requisite finding. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)Gi) (“In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed 24 : : Sa : willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the 95 || court in its discretion may increase the award of damages . . . .”) However, because the Court did not make the threshold finding in this case, it could not award enhanced damages. 26 > Though the Court is not bound by them, it notes that there are also cases in which district 07 courts denied statutory damages under similar circumstances. See, e.g., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Guzman, 2009 WL 1034218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009); Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. 28 Valenzuela, 2021 WL 5238592, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5238591 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021).