Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03939/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03939-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Communications Act of 1994

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGIO MOREIRA MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03939-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 32]

Before the Court is plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s Motion to Alter or Amend 

Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Pl.’s Mot., ECF 32. Plaintiff, having 

obtained default judgment against defendant Sergio Moreira Martinez in the amount of $4,450, 

contends that the Court erred in its assessment of damages and requests that the Court amend the 

judgment to award Plaintiff $22,600 instead. Id. 

Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment “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.” 389 

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The rule “may not be used to 

relitigate old matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to 

entry of final judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008).

Plaintiff identifies no new evidence or intervening change in the controlling law warranting 

reconsideration. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in concluding that though Plaintiff 

alleged claims under both 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, damages should only be assessed under § 

553 because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant intercepted satellite transmissions. See

Order on Default J. (hereinafter, “Order”) at 5, ECF 30. Plaintiff acknowledges that courts in this 

Case 5:14-cv-03939-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

district routinely award damages under § 553 where Plaintiff alleges claims under both statutes but 

fails to raise a reasonable inference through its pleadings or evidence that satellite, as opposed to 

cable, transmissions were intercepted. Plaintiff fails to distinguish the claims in this case from 

those in the other well-reasoned cases. Pl.’s Mot. 4-5. Indeed, as this Court observed in its order 

granting default judgment, Plaintiff’s own investigator did not see a satellite dish on the property. 

Order at 5. Given the evidentiary failings, there was no error in concluding that the only 

reasonable inference to be drawn from the pleadings and the evidence is a violation of § 553.

As to Plaintiff’s objection to the amount of damages awarded, the general rule is that a 

default admits liability but not the amount of damages. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 

560 (9th Cir. 1977); Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1198

(N.D. Cal. 2000). In determining the amount of damages, courts have considerable discretion to 

consider competent evidence and other papers submitted with a motion for default judgment. 

Geddes, 559 F.3d at 560; Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

To support its claim for damages, Plaintiff rested on the allegations in the Complaint and the 

declaration of its investigator, who was in Defendant’s establishment for five minutes. The Court 

concluded this evidence did not support the requested award of maximum statutory penalties and 

enhanced damages. Order at 5-8. Plaintiff’s arguments challenging that assessment fail to address 

its own evidentiary failings and amount to no more than a disagreement with this Court’s 

discretionary determination, in light of the relevant factors and the evidence before it, of a just 

statutory award founded in the evidence and with the Court’s declination to impose enhanced 

damages. That disagreement is no basis for amending or altering a judgment. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03939-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2