Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02306/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02306-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SCOTT MALCOMSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2306-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed by Plaintiff

Scott Malcomson pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which the Court treats as

a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. #71.) Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend

judgment “is appropriate ‘if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor 417

F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Upon review of Malcomson’s arguments in light of the record and the Court’s

previous Order, the Court denies Malcomson’s Motion. Here, Malcomson has not presented

the Court with any newly discovered evidence, nor has he demonstrated that its order and

judgment was somehow manifestly unjust. Finally, Malcomson does not cite any intervening

Case 2:08-cv-02306-GMS Document 72 Filed 03/01/10 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

- 2 -

change in the controlling law that suggest that he might have a valid joint ownership claim

based on the facts presented in the parties’ motions for summary judgment. 

Moreover, to the extent Malcomson’s Motion should be construed as a motion for

relief from judgment or order filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), his

arguments also fail. Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a final judgment for the

following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule

59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon

which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is

no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). None of these reasons for vacating the Court’s prior judgment exist

here, as the arguments Malcomson raises in his Motion are without merit. 

The crux of Malcomson’s argument in this Motion appears to be that the Court

refused to consider his separate statement of facts, as it was filed in the same document as

Malcomson’s motion for summary judgment (See Dkt. ## 48, 71.) The problem with the

summary judgment motion, however, was not that Malcomson failed to articulate facts in a

separate filing, but that he failed to set forth his facts by “refer[ing] to a specific admissible

portion of the record where the fact finds support (for example, affidavit, deposition,

discovery response, etc.).” LRCiv. 56.1(a). 

As discussed in the Court’s order granting Summary Judgment to the Topps

Company, Malcomson carried the burden of proof on his claims at trial; therefore, in

response to the Topps Company’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, he was required to

set forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. Malcomson failed to

present such facts. See LRCiv. 56.1(b); see also Malcomson v. The Topps Co., Inc., 2010 WL

383359, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2010) (“Malcomson has effectively admitted Topps'

version of the facts for purposes of the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment

Case 2:08-cv-02306-GMS Document 72 Filed 03/01/10 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

- 3 -

because he failed to file a controverting statement of facts in compliance with to Local Rule

56.1(b).”).

Finally, the Court did not merely rely on Malcomson’s failure to file a statement of

facts when it granted summary judgment to the Topps Company. Instead, the Court

addressed the merits of Malcomson’s claim for joint ownership and determined that

Malcomson’s claim failed as a matter of law. See id. at *4–9. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Malcomson’s Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (Dkt. # 71) is DENIED. 

DATED this 1st day of March, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02306-GMS Document 72 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 3