BWP Media USA Inc. v. Mishka NYC LLC

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff BWP Media USA Inc. d/b/a Pacific Coast News ("BWP") accepted an offer of judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, ECF Dkt. No. 45, which provided for the entry of judgment a gainst defendant Death Adders Inc. d/b/a Mishka NYC LLC, in the amount of $7,500 plus "costs and attorney [sic] fees in the amount to be set by the Court," ECF Dkt. No. 45-1 at 3. Judgment was entered, accordingly, on April 6, 2016. EC F Dkt. No. 46. On April 20, 2016, BWP moved for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to §505 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C § 505). ECF Dkt. No. 47. The parties then briefed the issue before Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. See ECF Dkt No s. 47, 50, 54, 55. On December 28, 2016,Magistrate Judge Bloom recommended that BWP's request for attorney's fees should be denied,but that costs in the amount of $400 should be awarded. ECF Dkt. No. 56 at 16. With notice given, see id ., no party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Bloom's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. In accordance with the applicable clear-error standard of review, see Dafeng Hengwe1 Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commer cial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), the Court has carefully reviewed the report and recommendation, and finds it to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts it, in its entirety, as the opin ion of the Court. Accordingly, BWP's request for attorney's fees is denied, but BWP is awarded $400 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 2/28/2017. (Basnight, Jasmine)

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------i-- x BWP MEDIA USA INC. d/b/a PACIFIC COAST : NEWS, I Plaintiff. Us * ol~~~g~~8~f'~i.N.Y. MAR 03 2017 * BROOKLYN OFFICE MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against- 13-cv-4435 (ENV) (LB) DEATH ADDERS INC. d/b/a MISHKA NYC LLC, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x VITALIANO, D.J. On March 7, 2016, plaintiffBWP Media ]SA Inc. d/b/a Pacific Coast News ("BWP") accepted an offer of judgment, pursuant to Feder4 Rule of Civil Procedure 68, ECF Dkt. No. 45, which provided for the entry of judgment against defendant Death Adders Inc. d/b/a Mishka NYC LLC, in the amount of $7 ,500 plus "costs anh attorney [sic] fees in the amount to be set by the Court," ECF Dkt. No. 45-1 at 3. Judgment wal entered, accordingly, on April 6, 2016. ECF I I Dkt. No. 46. On April 20, 2016, BWP moved for attom1y's fees and costs, pursuant to§ 505 of the Copyright Act (17 u.s.c. § 505). ECF Dkt. No. 4r Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. See ECF Dkt Nos. r, The parties then briefed the issue before 50, 54, 55. On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bloom recommended that BWP's request for attorney's fees should be denied, I but that costs in the amount of $400 should be awted. ECF Dkt. No. 56 at 16. With notice given, see id., no party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Bloom's report and recommendation, and the time to do so ,as passed. In accordance with the applicable clear-error standard ofreview, see Dafeng Hengwe1 Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), t e Court has carefully reviewed the report and 1 '1 I recommendation, and finds it to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The '1 Court, therefore, adopts it, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. I Conclusion Accordingly, BWP's request for attomey,\s fees is denied, but BWP is awarded $400 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket. So Ordered. Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 28, 2017 Eric N. Vitaliano ERIC N. VITALIANO United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?