Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Santoro, Inc. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 4/19/2016. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BROADCAST MUSIC INC. et al.

*
*
v.
* Civil Action No. WMN-16-399
*
SANTORO, INC. d/b/a CASEY’S
*
BAR & RESTAURANT et al.
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM
On March 9, 2016, the Clerk entered orders of default as to
Defendants Santoro, Inc. and Theresa Santoro on a finding that
Defendants were properly served and yet failed to respond to the
Complaint within the time permitted.

ECF Nos. 9 & 10.

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for default judgment.
No. 11.

ECF

Having considered the pleadings, declarations,

exhibits, and memorandum submitted in support of the motion, the
Court finds that the motion should be granted and Plaintiffs
awarded $15,000.00 in statutory damages, $3,300.00 in attorney’s
fees, and $500.00 in costs.
In light of Defendants’ default, the Court finds that
Defendants knowingly and intentionally infringed upon the
copyrights of five musical compositions owned and/or licensed by
Plaintiffs.

The Court finds that an award of statutory damages

in the amount of $3,000.00 for each of the infringements is
appropriate, for a total award of $15,000.00.

This is an amount

equal to approximately twice that which Defendants would have
paid and Plaintiffs would have received in licensing fees.

See

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Star Amusements, Inc., 44 F.3d 485,
488, 489 (7th Cir.1995) (upholding the statutory award of nearly
two times what the copyright registration fees would have been);
Canopy Music Inc. v. Harbor Cities Broadcasting, Inc., 950 F.
Supp. 913, 917 (E.D. Wis. 1997) (statutory award of $4,000 for
each of ten willful infringements reasonable where the $40,000
total award was less than twice the amount of $22,969.76
defendant would have otherwise paid in licensing fees).

Given

the relatively small size of Defendants’ establishment,1 the
Court finds that damages of this magnitude would sufficiently
discourage further wrongful conduct.
As for attorney’s fees, Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that
“[a]ll of the work that [he] do[es] for [his] clients is based
upon an hourly charge.”

Aff. of Max Stadfeld ¶ 7, ECF No. 12-1.

He then details the hours worked on this case (ten) and his
hourly rate ($330).

He then concludes, however, that

“[a]lthough the hourly fees incurred through April 12, 2016
total $3,800,2 Offit Kurman will charge BMI, and BMI will pay,

1

On one of the occasions that Plaintiffs’ investigator visited
the establishment, the investigator and his guest were the only
two customers for most of the evening. ECF No. 11-2.
2

Properly calculated, of course, the hourly fees are $3,300.00.
Counsel in his affidavit incorrectly added the $500.00 in costs
2

$6,000.00 for serviced performed through April 12, 2016 (and,
thereafter, through the filing of the Motion for Default
Judgment), plus the costs of $500.00.”

Id. ¶ 11.

While

Plaintiffs’ counsel may have negotiated to receive some premium
from this client, the Court finds the more appropriate measure
of reasonable attorney’s fees is the calculation based upon
counsel’s typical hourly rate.

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, the

court may award “a reasonable attorney’s fee” as well as costs.
A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum will
issue.

_______________/s/________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

DATED:

April 19, 2016

to his hourly fee, resulting in a double counting of those
costs. See ECF No. 12-1.
3