Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Maupin et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without object ions for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees and costs in the amount explained in the R&R. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/22/2019. (Coleman, Laurie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
ZUFFA, LLC, d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING
CHAMPIONSHIP, and JOE HAND
PROMOTIONS, INC,
Plaintiff,

FILED 
CLERK 

1:55 pm, Mar 22, 2019

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION & ORDER
2:15-cv-06355 (ADS) (AKT)

-againstSOUTH BEACH SALOON, INC., d/b/a
SOUTH BEACH SALOON, and MICHAEL J.
MAUPIN,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Jekielek & Janis LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
153 West 27th Street Suite 204
New York, NY 10001
By:
Jon Damon Jekielek, Esq.,
Ryan R. Janis, Esq., Of Counsel.
Sulimani & Nahoum PC
Co-Counsel for the Defendants
116 West 23rd Street Ste 500
New York, NY 10011
By:
Natalie Sulimani, Esq., Of Counsel.
Law Office of Trevor Brandt McCann
Co-Counsel for the Defendants
1595 Sunnyvale Ave #17
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
By:
Trevor B. McCann, Esq., Of Counsel.
SPATT, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate fighting Championship (“UFC”), and Joe Hand
Promotions (“Joe Hand”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), commenced this action against
1

Defendants South Beach Saloon, Inc., d/b/a South Beach Saloon (“South Beach”), and Michael J.
Maupin (“Maupin”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants’ public
exhibition of a “Pay-Per-View” event without license or permission violated the Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, and the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605.
On May 25, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. In the
decision, the Court awarded Plaintiffs $6,000 in damages, but denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for
attorney’s fees and costs, without prejudice, and with leave to re-file as a formal motion with
supporting documentation.
On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a formal motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
On June 28, 2018, the Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge A.
Kathleen Tomlinson for a Report and Recommendation as to whether the motion should be
granted, and the amount of fees to be awarded, if any.
On March 6, 2019, Judge Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs be granted and the Plaintiffs be awarded (1)
$46,375.00 in attorneys’ fees and (2) $668.86 in costs. Judge Tomlinson electronically served a
copy of the R&R on the parties.
It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not
filed objections.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court
has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its
result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).

2

Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees
and costs in the amount explained in the R&R.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 22, 2019
___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

3