Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02601/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:0553 U.S.C.A. Cable Communications Policy Act

---

1 

15cv2601-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

GORDON R. BRUMMELL, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv2601-MMA (MDD) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. No. 15] 

 On May 2, 2016, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff J & J 

Sports Productions, Inc. and against Defendants Gordon R. Brummell, individually and 

doing business as MJ’s Bar & Grill, and Brummell and Associates, LLC. See Doc. No. 

11. Plaintiff subsequently moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. See Doc. No. 

12. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part, and awarded Plaintiff $400 in costs. 

See Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration, seeking an award of attorney’s 

fees and additional costs. See Doc. No. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Federal Communications Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 605 et seq., which prohibits commercial establishments from intercepting and 

Case 3:15-cv-02601-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

15cv2601-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

broadcasting satellite cable programming, and violation of the Cable & Television 

Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553, which prohibits the 

unauthorized reception or interception of communications offered over a cable system. 

Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are recoverable by the prevailing party pursuant to 

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$2,195.00 and costs in the amount of $1,050.00. However, Plaintiff did not provide 

sufficient support for his attorney’s fees request, and he sought reimbursement of prefiling investigative expenses totaling $650.00, which this Court declined to find a 

recoverable cost. As such, the Court awarded Plaintiff costs only, in the amount of $400. 

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration, arguing that the Court’s denial of investigator fees as 

a recoverable cost was error. Plaintiff also requests that the Court reconsider awarding 

Plaintiff attorney’s fees. 

1. Legal Standard 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have the power 

to reconsider a judgment by motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to reconsider a 

judgment under Rule 59(e) seeks “a substantive change of mind by the court.” Tripati v. 

Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 205 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy and, 

in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources, should not be granted 

absent highly unusual circumstances. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 

2003); McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59 may not be 

used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to entry of the judgment. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 544 U.S. 471, 

486-87 (2008). 

Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if “(1) the district 

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear 

error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening 

change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 

772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). To carry the burden of proof, a moving party seeking 

Case 3:15-cv-02601-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

15cv2601-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision or a 

recapitulation of the cases and arguments previously considered by the court. See United 

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

2. Analysis 

Plaintiff did not support his request for attorney’s fees with contemporaneous 

billing records, and failed to demonstrate that the hourly rates requested are reasonable 

vis-à-vis the rates charged in “the forum in which the district court sits.” Gonzalez v. City 

of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff acknowledges that there 

is no cure at this juncture for the failure to provide contemporaneous billing records. 

Plaintiff does not assert that the Court erred in declining to award fees on this basis. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests reconsideration based on the fact that other courts have 

awarded attorney’s fees in similar cases. Plaintiff argues that the Court can fashion a 

reasonable hourly rate by looking to those cases and a newly filed declaration of counsel. 

However, a motion for reconsideration “is not a vehicle for . . . taking a ‘second bite at 

the apple.’” See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). Plaintiff 

did not provide adequate support for the requested attorney’s fees, and fails to set forth a 

proper ground for reconsideration. 

With respect to costs, the Court previously noted that Plaintiff provided no 

authority for the recovery of its investigative fees, and courts have refused to award prefiling investigation fees to the prevailing party. Plaintiff concedes that it failed to present 

any authority for an award of investigative fees in its original moving papers. Plaintiff 

cites to several cases in which the court found investigative fees recoverable. Two of the 

cases are out of circuit, and the third case provides no legal support for its determination. 

Meanwhile, as the Court previously noted, district courts in California continue to 

conclude that a plaintiff in this type of case should not recover investigative fees, 

particularly when the request for fees is insufficiently supported. The Court did not err in 

reaching a similar conclusion in this case. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-02601-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

15cv2601-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION

 Having reviewed its previous ruling, the Court is satisfied that it committed no 

error. Plaintiff has not provided any newly discovered evidence. Additionally, there has 

been no intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 2, 2016 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02601-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 4