Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00922/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00922-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

- 1 - 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLAES ENTERPRISES, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

vs.

RICHARD TRADING, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of

January 15, 2008. (Doc. # 11).

BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2007, Plaintiff Olaes Enterprises, Inc. filed the Complaint in this matter against

Defendant Richard Trading, Inc. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint alleged that Defendant willfully

infringed at least six of Plaintiff’s copyrighted graphic designs. (Doc. # 1). On or about June 1, 2007,

Plaintiff served Defendant with a summons and the Complaint. (Docs. # 3, 4). On September 17,

2007, and after Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint within the time period allowed by FED.

R. CIV. P. 12, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the Court enter default against Defendant. (Doc.

# 5). On September 28, 2007, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant. (Doc. # 7).

On November 1, 2007, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. (Doc. # 8).

Case 3:07-cv-00922-WQH-BLM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

On January 15, 2008, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment. (Doc. # 11). The Court concluded that Plaintiff had established six instances of willful

copyright infringement on the part of Defendant Richard Trading, and awarded Plaintiff statutory

damages in the amount of $5,000 per instance. (Doc. # 11). In total, the Court awarded statutory

damages in the amount of $30,000. (Doc. # 11). In addition to statutory damages, the Court awarded

Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $6,138.33, and costs in the amount of $422.33. (Doc. # 11).

On April 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration. (Doc. # 11).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) provides that a court may provide a party with relief from judgment

for any reason “that justifies relief.” While FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) is often referred to as a “catch

all,” courts have interpreted the provision “stringently.” Strobel v. Morgan Stanley, et al., 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 26899, *8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2007). The United States Supreme Court has noted that the

rule should be applied only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition

Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988), and the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has characterized the

rule as “an equitable remedy” used to “prevent manifest injustice.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &

Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006).

United States District Court for the Southern District of California Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1)

permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration when “new or different facts and circumstances

are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” A motion

for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1) must by filed within thirty (30) days of the

entry of the challenged ruling or judgment. See Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(2); Stephen v. Cota, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 37222, *4 & fn. 1 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2007). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration pursuant to FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b)(6) and

Civil Local Rule 7.1.i(1). Plaintiff contends that the Court’s previous award of statutory damages was

too low considering the willful nature of Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff contends that the award will

not serve to deter Defendant or other putative copyright infringers. In addition, Plaintiff characterizes

the award of statutory damages as a windfall to Defendant considering Defendant’s likely profits in

Case 3:07-cv-00922-WQH-BLM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

selling Plaintiff’s infringing works, and notes that the award is inconsistent with the large outlay in

costs that Plaintiff expends to create viable and profitable copyrighted designs. Plaintiff asks the

Court to vacate its previous statutory damages award of $30,000, and enter instead an award of

between $180,000 and $900,000.

A. Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6)

Plaintiff contends that this Court should reconsider its previous award of damages because the

previous award is too low to serve as a deterrent, allows Defendant a windfall given Defendant’s

likely profits in selling Plaintiff’s copyrighted designs, and does not compensate Plaintiff for losses

Plaintiff has suffered in terms of revenue and potential good will. Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s

refusal to cooperate in this suit makes it difficult for Plaintiff to detail its damages.

To support its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff includes declarations from Jay Kopelowitz

and Alexander Papaefthimiou. Each declaration, particularly that of Mr. Kopelowitz, discusses

reasons for increasing the award of statutory damages. In particular, the declaration of Kopelowitz

notes the breadth of the copyright infringement problem in Los Angeles’ garment district, and

highlights the time, effort, and expense necessary to create profitable copyrighted designs.

Kopelowitz identifies six other copyright infringement lawsuits which Plaintiff has filed in order to

protect its copyrights, and notes that the Court’s award of only $5,000 per instance of infringement

will encourage copyright infringement because putative infringers can afford to pay such damages as

part of the cost of doing business.

As noted above, a motion for reconsideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) is only

granted in extraordinary circumstances, and only to prevent manifest injustice. See Liljeberg, 486

U.S. at 864; Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s business depends upon the

viability of its copyrighted designs, and further, that by infringing upon copyrighted designs infringers

such as Defendant can reap considerable profits. However, after considering the motion for

reconsideration and the supporting declarations, the Court concludes that this is not the extraordinary

circumstance which warrants relief from judgment under FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(6). While Plaintiff has

included more support for its request for damages than it did originally, the Court finds that the newly

submitted information was available to Plaintiff previously, and Plaintiff does not explain why it was

Case 3:07-cv-00922-WQH-BLM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 5
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

1

 Given that Plaintiff has supported its motion only with information that was previously

available to Plaintiff, the Court notes that it was unreasonable for Plaintiff to wait almost three months

to file the motion for reconsideration under the facts of this case.

- 4 - 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

not submitted before. As noted by the court in Strobel, rules allowing for reconsideration of previous

orders “are not intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.” Strobel, 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 26899, *9 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2007). In addition, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not

established that manifest injustice will result if the Court does not provide for an award of greater

damages. It is in the Court’s discretion to determine the amount of damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),

and while the Court did not give the maximum award available, the Court awarded more than six-anda-half times the minimum damages. In light of Plaintiff’s inability to identify actual damages, the

speculative nature of Defendant’s potential profits from infringing, the imposition of an injunction,

and the relatively quick manner in which this case was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court

concludes that the previous award of statutory damages was just. If, as Plaintiff predicts, Defendant

continues to infringe upon Plaintiff’s copyrights, Plaintiff will be in a better position to argue that a

greater award is necessary to deter. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish that this is an

extraordinary circumstance which warrants relief under FED.R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6).1

 Plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) is DENIED.

B. Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1)

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on January 15, 2008, and Plaintiff

filed the motion for reconsideration on April 10, 2008. (Docs. # 10-11). 

Plaintiff contends that because it has presented information to the Court which the Court did

not have the opportunity to consider previously, Plaintiff is entitled to de novo review of its motion

for default judgment pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1). However, a motion for reconsideration

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1) must be filed within thirty (30) days of the order or ruling being

challenged, and in this case Plaintiff waited almost three months to file the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.i(1) is DENIED

as untimely.

Case 3:07-cv-00922-WQH-BLM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 07CV922 WQH (BLM)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 11) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 23, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00922-WQH-BLM Document 12 Filed 07/23/08 Page 5 of 5