Crye Precision LLC et al v. Bennettsville Printing

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Granting 87 Motion for Attorney Fees and granting 98 MJ Reyes's Report and Recommendations. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 9/18/2019. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------x
CRYE PRECISION LLC and
LINEWEIGHT LLC,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 15-CV-221 (FB) (RER)

-againstBENNETTSVILLE PRINTING,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------x
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiffs Crye Precision LLC and Lineweight LLC (together, “Crye” or
“Plaintiffs”) object to Magistrate Judge Reyes’s August 13, 2019, Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Bennettsville Printing (“Bennettsville”
or “Defendant”) be awarded attorney’s fees in the total amount of $367,880.00.
The R&R concluded Bennettsville was “entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to [a] 2012 Agreement,” R&R at 9, but found it “impossible
to accept that the amount of time reflected in Bennettsville’s invoices constitutes a
‘presumptively reasonable’ amount,” and so recommend “reducing Bennettsville’s
total requested hours by twenty-five percent.” Id. at 12. Crye objects to both
portions of the R&R, arguing that it was error for Magistrate Judge Reyes to award
any fees under the 2012 Agreement. Upon de novo review of those portions of the

R&R, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court overrules Crye’s objections and adopts the
R&R in full.
Section 14(c) of the 2012 Agreement controls for purposes of awarding
attorneys’ fees. Crye objects on the grounds that a 2014 Agreement supersedes the
parties’ 2012 contract and, alternatively, that the 2012 Agreement cannot govern the
fee award because Crye “did not bring this action in connection with the 2012
Agreement.” Both of Crye’s arguments fail.
To begin, Crye’s contention that it did not bring this action in connection with
the 2012 Agreement is simply untrue. Crye’s Amended Complaint included claims
for (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of the 2014 Agreement; (3) breach of the 2012
Agreement; (4) violations of the Lanham Act; and (5) common law unfair
competition. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42, 66–77 (Third Claim). Crye has litigated its
claim for breach of the 2012 Agreement since initiating this dispute, including
throughout Bennettsville’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, see Dkt.
Nos. 23, 74.
Moreover, the 2012 Agreement provides that Section 14(c) governing
attorney’s fees “shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.”
Contrary to Crye’s argument that the 2014 Agreement supersedes the parties’ 2012
Agreement, nothing in the 2014 Agreement negates or contradicts the continued
2

viability of the 2012 provision. As explained by the R&R, this Court declines to
read-in a “blanket extinguishment of prior contractual provisions absent definitive
language to the contrary.” R&R at 8. In sum, we find that the 2012 Agreement
controls the award of attorneys’ fees in this case.
Crye also objects to the R&R on the grounds that, even applying the 2012
Agreement to the fee award, Magistrate Judge Reyes erred in awarding Bennettsville
any attorneys’ fees because Bennettsville failed to “segregate[] the fees it incurred
in defending Crye’s claims under the 2012 Agreement from the fees it incurred in
defending the rest of the case.” Crye’s position is that because Bennettsville only
requests fees only under the 2012 Agreement, any fees related to litigating the claim
for breach of the 2014 Agreement or to preparing the motion for fees itself may not
be recovered.
Crye misreads the R&R: In actuality, Magistrate Judge Reyes agreed with
Crye that Bennettsville’s fee submissions were “problematic” and the “requested
hours [were] unreasonable,” ultimately recommending a 25% reduction to
Bennettsville’s requested hours.

R&R at 12–13 & n.4.

The R&R also

recommended denying Bennettsville’s request for costs entirely, finding that
Bennettsville failed to substantiate its expenses in sufficient detail or verify their
reasonableness. R&R at 14.
3

Bennettsville’s fee submissions include time entries for unrelated work as
well as redacted entries that prevent this Court from determining whether the
corresponding work is covered by the 2012 Agreement or not.

Furthermore,

Bennettsville failed to provide this Court with a final number of hours that its counsel
spent litigating this dispute—though we concur with the R&R’s calculation that
Bennettsville’s submissions reflect a total of 1,515 hours. See R&R at 12 n.4.
Given the various infirmities in Bennettsville’s submissions, we agree with the R&R
that a 25% reduction to Bennettsville’s hours is appropriate. “If a court finds that
the fee applicant’s claim is excessive, or that time spent was wasteful or duplicative,
it may decrease or disallow certain hours or, where the application for fees is
voluminous, order an across-the-board percentage reduction in compensable hours.”
Spalluto v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower, No. 04 Civ. 7497 (RJS) (HBP), 2008 WL
4525372, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2008).
Applying the 25% reduction leaves Bennettsville with a total of 1,136.3
compensable hours. See Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, No. 94-CV-2622 (FB)
(WDW), 2005 WL 1397202, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2005) (“Because ‘it is
unrealistic to expect a trial judge to evaluate and rule on every entry in an
application,’ courts apply across-the-board percentage cuts.”) (quoting N.Y. State
Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir. 1983)).
4

This total reasonably accounts for the fees that Bennettsville’s counsel incurred
litigating in connection with the 2012 Agreement.

As Bennettsville failed to

provide adequate documentation to substantiate it’s requested costs, we further
concur with the denial of all requested costs in full. United Health Programs of
America, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 3d 199, 236 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Failure to adequately
document costs may result in the denial or reduction of those costs.”).
Having reviewed the R&R de novo, Crye’s objections are overruled and the
R&R is adopted in full.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Frederic Block____________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
September 12, 2019

5