Tile, Inc. v. CellnTell Distribution Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Reliance Distribution Inc. shall pay Plaintiff the amount of $13,268.50 in attorney's fees on or before December 3, 2021; and upon making such payment, shall file an affidavit with the Court attest ing that it has done so. Upon the filing of said affidavit, the Court will vacate the default judgment entered against Defendant Reliance; and within fourteen (14) days of that vacation, Defendant Reliance shall file its response to Plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 11/19/2021. (pjh, )

Download PDF
U.S. DISTRICT COURT – N.D. OF N.Y. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ TILE, INC., Plaintiff, FILED Nov 19 - 2021 John M. Domurad, Clerk v. 1:20-CV-428 (FJS/DJS) CELLNTELL DISTRIBUTION INC. and RELIANCE DISTRIBUTION INC., Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL K & L GATES LLP State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Attorneys for Plaintiff MORGAN T. NICKERSON, ESQ. NICOLE M. KOZIN, ESQ. CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP 90 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10016 Attorneys for Defendants GALEN J. CRISCIONE, ESQ. SCULLIN, Senior Judge ORDER In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated June 30, 2021, the Court, among other things, granted Defendant Reliance Distribution Inc.'s ("Defendant Reliance") motion to vacate the default judgment against it conditioned on Defendant Reliance's payment of the reasonable attorney's fees that Plaintiff incurred in filing its motion for a default judgment. See Dkt. No. 31 at 20. Relatedly, the Court instructed Plaintiff's counsel to file and serve an affidavit with supporting documentation showing the hours expended and tasks performed related to the filing of Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment on or before July 14, 2021. See id. The Court also provided Defendant Reliance with an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's counsel's submissions on or before July 28, 2021. See id. Plaintiff's counsel filed the required documentation. See Dkt. No. 32. Defendant Reliance did not file any response to that documentation. According to Plaintiff's counsel's affidavit, Plaintiff incurred $13,268.50 in attorney's fees related to the filing of its motion for a default judgment. See Dkt. No. 32, Affidavit of Morgan T. Nickerson, at ¶ 7. Furthermore, Plaintiff's counsel identified the three attorneys who expended hours related to the filing of such motion and set forth their experience and hourly rates as follows: Morgan T. Nickerson, a partner with 15 years of experience specializing in intellectual property litigation, expended 15.50 hours on the motion at an hourly rate of $705.00; Nicole M. Kozin, an associate, who received her J.D. in 2004, expended 2.2 hours on the motion at an hourly rate of $555.00; and Jack S. Brodsky, an associate, who received his J.D. in 2016, expended 2.0 hours on the motion at an hourly rate of $560.00 See id. at ¶¶ 9-11 & Exhibit "A" attached thereto. Having reviewed the documentation that Plaintiff's counsel submitted, the Court finds that the hours expended and the hourly rates for the work that the attorneys performed are reasonable; and, therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant Reliance Distribution Inc. shall pay Plaintiff the amount of $13,268.50 in attorney's fees on or before December 3, 2021; and upon making such payment, shall file an affidavit with the Court attesting that it has done so. Upon the filing of said affidavit, the Court will vacate the default judgment entered against Defendant Reliance; and, -2- within fourteen (14) days of that vacation, Defendant Reliance shall file its response to Plaintiff's complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2021 Syracuse, New York -3-

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?