Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONICVIEW USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-cv-1553-L(WVG)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

COURTNEY BERNARD’S MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR

RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 187]

On May 31, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C., Echostar

Technologies L.L.C., and Nagrastar L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 181.) An

order entering judgment against Defendants Sonicview USA, Inc., Roberto Sanz, Danial Pierce,

and Alan Phu (“Sonicview Defendants”) in the amount of $64,980,200, and against Defendants

Duane Bernard and Courtney Bernard in the amount of $984,800 jointly and severally followed. 

(Doc. 182.) Defendant Duane Bernard now moves for clarification and/or reconsideration of the

summary-judgment order. Plaintiffs oppose.

The Court noted this motion would be considered on the papers submitted and without

oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 185.) For the following reasons, the Court

DENIES Courtney Bernard’s motion for clarification and/or reconsideration. (Doc. 187.)

//

09cv1553

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 266 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 3
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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a motion under

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5

F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,

the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

(9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should

not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a motion for reconsideration may not be

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have

been raised earlier in the litigation. Id. It does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.” See

id. Finally, “after thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for

reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2

(S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009).

Similarly, Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044

(9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir.

1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration based on: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

//

//

09cv1553

2

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 266 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

Though Courtney Bernard moves for clarification and/or reconsideration of the Court’s

summary-judgment order, he fails to apply the appropriate legal standard to show that

reconsideration is warranted. Rather, as Plaintiffs point out, the substance of Courtney

Bernard’s motion is arguing that the Court erred by not allocating a percentage or specific dollar

amount of liability to him personally, suggesting that his brother Duane Bernard is more to

blame and should be responsible for most of the damages. (Def.’s Mot. 2:7–23.)

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have recognized that joint and several liability is appropriate

when awarding actual or statutory damages against copyright infringers. See Range Rd. Music,

Inc. v. E. Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming the district court

awarding statutory damages against defendants jointly and severally liable for copyright

infringement); Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Divineo, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 2d 957, 967 (N.D.

Cal. 2006) (finding defendants jointly and severally liable for statutory damages for violations of

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Courtney Bernard fails to provide any authority that

would lead this Court to reach another conclusion regarding the award against him and Duane

Bernard. In fact, his motion for reconsideration is completely devoid of references to any law. 

Therefore, Duane Bernard and Courtney Bernard are jointly and severally liable for $984,800.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Because Courtney Bernard fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the Court

DENIES his motion. (Doc. 187.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

09cv1553

3

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 266 Filed 09/20/12 Page 3 of 3