Ghahremani v. Craft for Kids Imports, Inc. et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts MJ Eshkenazi's Report and Recommendation 17 without de novo review. Plaintiffs motion 12 for default judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 3/11/2025. (MI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUSAN GHAHREMANI,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 24-CV-04356-FB-LKE

CRAFT FOR KIDS IMPORTS, INC.,
Defendant.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
ANDREW GERBER
Kushnirsky Gerber PLLC
27 Union Square West, Suite 301
New York, New York 10003
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Susan Ghahremani (“Plaintiff”) commenced this
action against Defendant Craft For Kids Imports, Inc. (“CFK” or “Defendant”).
Plaintiff asserts that CFK, a wholesaler of arts and crafts, sold Plaintiff’s copyrighted
designs without consent. More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant
committed copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
501, et seq.; distribution of goods with missing and altered copyright management
information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17
U.S.C. § 1202(b); and distribution of goods with false copyright management
information in violation of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a).

1

The summons and complaint were served on CFK on June 24, 2024, with the
response due by July 15, 2024. When Defendant failed to respond within the required
time, Plaintiff requested a certificate of default, which the Clerk of Court issued on
July 18, 2024. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment
against Defendant.
On February 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion.
She reasoned that Defendant should be liable for copyright infringement,
distributing copyrighted works with false copyright management information, and
distributing copyrighted works with copyright management information removed.
In addition to (1) granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Magistrate Judge
Eshkenazi recommended that the District Court “(2) award $135,000 in statutory
damages from Defendant; (3) issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant
from further infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works; and (4) award Plaintiff’s
counsel their attorney’s fees of $8,055 and costs of $519.30.” R&R at 25.
The R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, i.e., until February
19, 2024, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time
waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in
reliance on this Report and Recommendation.” Id. at 26. No objections have been
filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object, and
2

there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102
(2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to
timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of
further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citations omitted)). The Court
will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears
that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v.
Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).
No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. The only change
to be made is regarding the forum rule for ascertaining the hourly rate for attorney’s
fees. Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi wrote, “[P]revailing rates for experienced
attorneys . . . range from approximately $300 to $400 per hour. Zuffa, LLC v. South
Beach Saloon, Inc., No. 15-CV-6355 (ADS) (AKT), 2019 WL 1322620, at *7
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019).” However, the range is higher for partners, whose hourly
rate can fall approximately between $300 to $450. Id. at *6 (quoting Safeco
Insurance Company of America v. M.E.S., Inc., No. 09-CV-3312 (PKC) (VMS),
2018 WL 2766139, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018)).” R&R at 23. But these rates have
been superseded by the new forum rule rates announced in Rubin v. HSBC Bank
USA, NA, ––– F. Supp. 4th ––––, ––––, 2025 WL 248253, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21,
2025); Moore v. Rubin, No. 17-CV-6404 (BMC), 2025 WL 510017, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
3

Feb. 14, 2025) (“After an extensive and well-documented discussion of the impact
of inflation on the cost of living, [Judge Block] found that the reasonable hourly
rates in this district are now $450 to $650 for partners, $300 to $450 for senior
associates, $150 to $300 for junior associates, and $100 to $150 for paralegals”).
But the change in the forum rule does not alter the rest of Magistrate Judge
Eshkenazi’s well-reasoned calculation of the hourly rate. She found the partner’s
hourly rate of $500, the third-year associate’s hourly rate of $320, and the first-year
associate’s hourly rate of $220 to be reasonable. R&R at 24. These rates are
comfortably within the updated forum rule range.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the rest of the R&R without de novo review.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in
accordance with this opinion.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
March 11, 2025

4