Gucci America, Inc. v. Gucci et al

Filing 190

DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth therein and herein, the Court adopts the Reports in their entirety. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff in the following amounts: (1) $128,892.65 in damages and $579,079.50 in attorneys� 39; fees, for which Jennifer Gucci and Litwak are jointly and severally liable; (2) $200,750.00 in damages and $421,974.oo in attorneys fees, for which Gemma Gucci and Litwak are jointly and severally liable (3)$325,000.00 in punitive damages and $266,653.50 in attorneys' fees, for which Litwak is individually liable; and (4)$121,655.33 in costs, for which Jennifer Gucci and litwak are jointly and severally liable (and for the first $99,330.44 of which Gemma Gucci is also jointly and severally liable) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/30/2010) (js)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x GUCCI AMERICA, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : - against : : JENNIFER GUCCI, et al., : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------x I. Background 07 Civ. 6820 (RMB) (JCF) DECISION & ORDER On September 7, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, to whom this case had been referred for a determination of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, issued a thorough 79 page report and recommendation ("First Report") recommending, among other things, that judgment be entered for Gucci America, Inc. ("Plaintiff") as follows: (1) $128,892.65 in damages and $579,079.50 in attorneys' fees, for which Defendant Jennifer Gucci and Defendant Edward Litwak ("Litwak") should be jointly and severally liable; (2) $200,750.00 in damages and $421,974.00 in attorneys' fees, for which Defendant Gemma Gucci and Litwak should be jointly and severally liable; and (3) $325,000.00 in punitive damages and $266,653.50 in attorneys' fees, for which Litwak should alone be liable. (See First Report, dated Sept. 7, 2010, at 78.) Judge Francis also recommended that Plaintiff's request for costs "be denied without prejudice." (First Report at 78.) After Plaintiff submitted further documentation and explanation of its costs on September 24, 2010, Judge Francis issued a second report and recommendation, dated November 5, 2010 ("Second Report," and together with the First Report, the "Reports"), recommending that, in addition to the damages and fees recommended in the First Report, Jennifer Gucci and Litwak should be held jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for $121,655.33 in costs. (See Second Report, dated Nov. 5, 2010, at 6.) Judge Francis also recommended that Gemma Gucci should be held jointly and severally liable for the first $99,330.44 of that sum. (See Second Report at 6.) 1 On September 24, 2010, Gemma Gucci filed objections to the First Report ("Objections"), arguing, among other things, that this Court should assign no liability and no attorneys' fees to her, and should "not hold [her] jointly and severally liable for the `profits' of . . . Litwak," because the Court's finding, at the conclusion of a bench trial held on June 29, 2009, that Gemma Gucci willfully and in bad faith infringed upon Plaintiff's trademarks "was in error." (Objections, dated Sept. 24, 2010, at 1, 2, 12 (citing Court's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, dated Aug. 5, 2009 ("Findings")).) On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a response to Gemma Gucci's Objections ("Response"), arguing that the "Objections are based, in their entirety, on [Gemma Gucci's] attempt to rehash this Court's trial findings, [and] they should be dismissed." (Response, dated Oct. 8, 2010, at 3.) Despite the Reports' language advising that the parties shall have fourteen (14) days to file written objections, and that "[f]ailure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review" (First Report at 78­79; Second Report at 6­7), no one other than Gemma Gucci has, to date, filed objections to either of the Reports. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Reports in their entirety. 1 Among other things, in the Second Report, Judge Francis reviewed Plaintiff's September 24, 2010 submission and Gemma Gucci's opposition, dated October 8, 2010. (Second Report at 1 n.1, 2­5.) Although Judge Francis denied Gemma Gucci's opposition to legal research, photocopying, and service of process costs, finding such charges "reasonable" and "sufficiently documented," Judge Francis concluded that Gemma Gucci's opposition was "correct" as to electronic discovery and witness travel, and declined to assess those costs against her. (Second Report at 2­5.) 2 II. Legal Standard The Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of [a magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may adopt any portions of a magistrate judge's

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?