Tecnoglass, LLC v. Paredes et al

Filing 116

ORDER adopting 114 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/26/2024. See attached document for full details. (mh02)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:22-cv-22356-KMM
TECNOGLASS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
EUSEBIO PAREDES, et al.,
Defendants,

/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Tecnoglass, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Final Judgment and Related Relief, Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, and Costs.
(“Mot.”) (ECF No. 109). The Motion was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States
Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the
Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required
by law and/or issue a Report and Recommendation regarding the issues of damages and attorney’s
fees and costs. (ECF No. 110). On February 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and
Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 114), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff filed a Limited Objection to the Report and

Recommendations. (“Obj.”) (ECF No. 115). The matter is now ripe for review. 1 As set forth
below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.

1

The Court assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set
forth in the R&R. See R&R at 1–3.

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a
party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Yet when a party has failed to object to the
magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14CV-21230, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No.
17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge
“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review ”).
II.

DISCUSSION
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that: (1) Plaintiff be awarded

$31,000.00 in damages for each of the four instances of copyright infringement, totaling
$124,000.00, against Defendant Building Envelope Systems, Inc. (“BES”) for willful infringement
of Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials, R&R at 4–10; (2) Plaintiff be found entitled to $350,000.00
in liquidated damages against Defendant RC Home Showcase, Inc. (“RC Home”) pursuant to
Article XI of the 2018 Settlement Agreement, id. at 10–15; (3) Plaintiff be found entitled to
attorney’s fees against Defendant BES pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act, id. at 16–19;
(4) Plaintiff be found entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred for breach of the
2018 Settlement Agreement against Defendant RC Home, id. at 19; (5) Plaintiff’s Motion for an
award of attorney’s fees be denied without prejudice for failure to adhere to the Local Rules, id. at

2

19–20; and (6) Plaintiff’s request for costs be denied for failure to comply with the Local Rules,
id. at 21–22.
The only objection filed by any of the Parties relates to Plaintiff’s request for statutory
damages under the Copyright Act. See generally Obj. As noted above, Magistrate Judge Louis
recommends that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $124,000.00 for its
copyright infringement claim against BES pursuant to Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. § 504(c). See R&R at 9. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Plaintiff
be awarded $31,000.00 in damages for each of the four instances of copyright infringement. Id.
Plaintiff objects to the recommended damages award solely with respect to one of the four
violations. See Obj. at 7. Plaintiff argues that enhanced statutory damages in the amount of
$150,000.00 are appropriate for BES’s copyright infringement in connection with the 601
Washington Project because (1) BES’s infringement was willful and (2) enhanced damages are
necessary to deter BES and Paredes from infringing upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted intellectual
property in the future. Id. at 5.
Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act provides that, once a plaintiff has established the
infringement of its copyrighted work, a plaintiff may elect to receive an award of statutory damages
“in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000” for each work. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).
Where a plaintiff demonstrates “that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its
discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000” per
work. Id. § 504(c)(2). “The Court has substantial discretion to enter a damages award within these
statutory limits.” Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. v. Palm Beach Real Est., Inc., No. 2081307-CIV, 2021 WL 2823270, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2021) (citing Cable/Home Commc’n Corp.
v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 852 (11th Cir. 1990). “In calculating damages, courts

3

generally consider: (1) the infringers’ blameworthiness (willful, knowing, or innocent); (2) the
expenses saved and the profits reaped by the defendants in connection with the infringement; (3)
the revenues lost by the plaintiffs due to the defendants’ conduct; and (4) the deterrent value of the
damages imposed.” Broad. Music, Inc. v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, Inc., 772 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th
Cir. 2014). However, “[s]tatutory damages are not intended to provide a plaintiff with a windfall
recovery; they should bear some relationship to the actual damages suffered.” Clever Covers, Inc.
v. Sw. Fla. Storm Def., LLC, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
As previously noted, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Plaintiff be awarded
$31,000.00 in damages for each violation against BES for infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted
materials. R&R at 9. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis finds that “[t]he undisputed facts . . .
demonstrate that BES, through [Defendant Eusebio] Paredes, knowingly infringed Plaintiff’s
copyrighted materials, and thus support a finding of willful infringement.” Id. at 7. However,
Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that an award of $150,000.00 per violation, which is Section
504(c)’s maximum award and Plaintiff’s request, is not warranted in this case. Id. at 8. In its
Objections, Plaintiff does not point to any specific legal error that Magistrate Judge Louis made in
reaching this determination. See generally Obj. Rather, Plaintiff merely reiterates its argument
that enhanced statutory damages in the amount of $150,000.00 are appropriate for BES’s copyright
infringement in connection with the 601 Washington Project. Id. at 5.
After careful review of the record and Magistrate Judge Louis’s detailed R&R, this Court
agrees that the maximum award of $150,000.00 is not warranted with respect to the 601
Washington Project, and that an award of $31,000.00 for each of the four instances of infringement
is appropriate. As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Louis agrees with Plaintiff that the record

4

supports a finding of willfulness with respect to the 601 Washington Project. See R&R at 7.
However, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that “BES’s proffered halt of any infringement, which
is unrebutted by Plaintiff . . . somewhat lessen[s] the Court’s concern of future violations and the
need for deterrence in assessing an award of statutory damages.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff does not take
issue with this conclusion in its Objections. See generally Obj. Magistrate Judge Louis further
notes that Plaintiff has not provided any specific amounts to assist the Court in determining an
appropriate award of statutory damages. R&R at 8. Nor has Plaintiff explained exactly how it has
been damaged by the infringement. Id. at 9. Given that Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence
on which to base the award of statutory damages, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Louis
that an award of $31,000.00 per violation is appropriate to ensure that Defendants do not reap a
benefit from the violations and Plaintiff does not receive a windfall recovery. Accordingly, the
Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection.
No other objections to R&R were filed by any of the Parties. After careful review, this
Court agrees with the findings and recommendations set forth in Magistrate Judge Louis’s
thorough and well-reasoned R&R.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 114) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment
and Related Relief, Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, and Costs (ECF No. 109) is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

5

1.

Plaintiff is awarded $31,000.00 in damages for each instance of copyright
infringement, totaling $124,000.00, against Defendant BES for willful
infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials.

2.

Plaintiff is awarded $350,000.00 in liquidated damages against Defendant RC
Home pursuant to Article XI of the 2018 Settlement Agreement.

3.

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees against Defendant BES pursuant
to Section 505 of the Copyright Act.

4.

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Article XXII of the
2018 Settlement Agreement against Defendant RC Home.

5.

Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to adhere to the Local Rules.

6.

Plaintiff shall file an amended motion for an award of attorney’s fees within
fourteen (14) days of this Order and submit via e-mail to the Court an Excel
spreadsheet of counsel’s billing entries.

7.

Plaintiff’s request for costs is DENIED.

A Final Judgment consistent with this Order shall follow.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______
26th day of March, 2024.

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record

6