Pearson Education, Inc. et al v. Aegis Trading Corp. et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: on re: 150 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs do not object to the Report's recommended damages award. The Report's recommendation that Plaintiffs be granted a total award of $1,400,000 is ADOPTE D. The award is to be apportioned as follows: $600,000 for Pearson, $700,000 for Cengage, and $100,000 for Wiley. Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgement interest on their award, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/14/2018) (ap)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., and JOHN WILEY & SONS,
· ·,~~;m:.14"'2.aTB '.
'-·o·-._~~-••• --~...:.~~~-: ::..~~~.'~.~~~·~:.~~::::~-
16 Civ. 743 (GBD) (SN)
AEGIS TRADING CORP., ALLEGIS CORP.,
AMACO CORP., APPLEBEE'S CORP.,
BIRDWELL CORP., BOWLMOR CORP., BOYD
BRANDS INC., COLECO CORP., DOOR OF
BOOKS INC., DYNERGY MEDIA INC., KROGER:
CORP., MITTEL INC., NORTEL CORP.,
ZETTA WORLD CORP., SURAJ PRASAD,
SANDEEP KUMAR, PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN,
SANJAY KUMAR, DAMAN KAMRA, ASHOK
SINGH, PUNEET ARORA, WASIM AKRAM,
SHIV AM SINGH, NEERAJ KOHLI, SAGAR
BOOK ENTERPRISES, and John Does 1-25,
GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
On November 9, 2016, this Court issued an Order finding that Plaintiffs Pearson Education,
Inc. ("Pearson"), Cengage Learning, Inc. ("Cengage"), and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ("Wiley"),
were entitled to entry of a final default judgment against all defaulting Defendants 1 in this case.
(See Order, ECF No. 133.) This Court found Defendants liable for willful copyright infringement
in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and willful trademark infringement and
The defaulting defendants include: Aegis Trading Corp., Allegis Corp., Amaco Corp., Applebee's Corp.,
Birdwell Corp., Bowlmor Corp., Boyd Brands Inc., Coleco Corp., Door of Books Inc., Dynergy Media Inc.,
Kroger Corp., Mittel Inc., Nortel Corp., and Zettaworld Corp.
counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. That same day, this case was referred
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to conduct an inquest on damages. (ECF No. 134.)
Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Netburn's Report and Recommendation ("Report,"
ECF. No. 150.) Finding that Plaintiffs are "barred from receiving a dual recovery of statutory
damages," Magistrate Judge Netbum recommended Plaintiffs be granted a total award of
$1,400,000 representing $100,000 for each incident of alleged copyright infringement. (Report at
1-2.) The Report recommended the award be apportioned as follows: $600,000 for Pearson,
$700,000 for Cengage, and $100,000 for Wiley. (Id. at 2.) The Report also noted that Plaintiffs
are entitled to post-judgement interest on their award. (Id. at 15.) 2
In her Report, Magistrate Judge Netbum advised the parties that failure to file timely
objections would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Id. at 16.) On April 21, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a limited objection to the Report but did not object to the recommendation as to the
damages award. 3 (Pls.' Obj. to Report ("Obj."), ECF No. 153.) This Court adopts the Report's
recommended damages award.
A district court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations set forth within the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). When no objections
to the Report are made, the court may adopt the Report if "there is no clear error on the face of the
The relevant procedural and factual background is set forth in detail in the Report and is incorporated
Plaintiffs do not object to the Report's recommended damages award. (Obj. at 1.) Rather, Plaintiffs only
object to the Report "to the extent that it could be read to preclude the possibility of dual statutory damages
in an appropriate case" alleging violations under both the Copyright and Lanham Acts. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs
argue that whether dual recovery is categorically barred is a question unresolved in the Second Circuit. (Id.
at I.) Given that Plaintiffs do not object to Magistrate Judge Netbum's recommendation as to damages, this
Court sees no need to make a determination as to the merits of Plaintiffs' objections.
record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation
When there are objections to the Report, this Court must make a de novo determination as
to the objected-to portions of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) (2009); see also Rivera v.
Barnhart, 423 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). It is sufficient that this Court "arrive at its
own, independent conclusions" regarding those portions to which objections were made. Nelson
v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (internal citation omitted); see United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980). However, where a litigant's objections are
conclusory, repetitious, or perfunctory, the standard of review is clear error. McDonaugh v.
Astrue, 672 F. Supp. 2d 542, 547-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Plaintiffs do not object to the Report's recommended damages award. The Report's
recommendation that Plaintiffs be granted a total award of $1,400,000 is ADOPTED. The award
is to be apportioned as follows: $600,000 for Pearson, $700,000 for Cengage, and $100,000 for
Wiley. Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgement interest on their award.
Dated: New York, New York
United States District Judge
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?