Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Side Pocket Billiards, LLC et al
Filing
13
DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 12 motion for attorney fees. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 715/2019. (LCH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
16-CV-858
DECISION AND ORDER
SIDE POCKET BILLIARDS, LLC,
d/b/a The Q
a/k/ The Q Sports Bar; and
JUSTIN LINDELL
Defendants.
On October 27, 2016, the plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Joe Hand”)
brought this action under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, alleging that the defendants
unlawfully exhibited an “Ultimate Fighting Championship” match in violation of Joe
Hand’s exclusive distribution rights to the program. Docket Item 1. On January 31,
2017, the defendants answered, Docket Item 5, and on February 17, 2017, Joe Hand
filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Docket Item 9. The defendants did not respond to Joe Hand’s motion,
and on April 11, 2019, this Court ordered the defendants to show cause why Joe Hand’s
motion should not be granted by default because they failed to comply with the
requirements of Local Rule 7(a)(2)(A). Docket Item 10. When the defendants did not
respond, this Court granted Joe Hand’s motion by default, Docket Item 11, and that
same day, Joe Hand moved for attorneys’ fees, Docket Item 12.
In his motion, counsel for Joe Hand submits that he spent 1.8 hours researching,
preparing, and filing the motion to strike affirmative defenses, and he seeks $630.00 in
attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion. Docket Item 12 at 2. He asks that the
defendants be required to reimburse him within fourteen days of entry of an order. Id.
DISCUSSION
Joe Hand does not identify any legal authority in support of his motion. Because
its claims are brought under 47 U.S.C. § 553 and § 605, and because those statutes
address attorneys’ fees, this Court analyzes its motion under the provisions in those
statutes. Section 553(c)(2)(C) provides that “[t]he court may . . . direct the recovery of
full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who
prevails.” And § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) provides that “[t]he court . . . shall direct the recovery of
full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who
prevails.” Although § 553 provides courts with the discretion to award fees and § 605
requires courts to do so, see Charter Commc’ns Entm’t, LLC v. Burdulis, 367 F. Supp.
2d 16, 20 (D. Mass. 2005), under both statutes, the “aggrieved party” must “prevail” to
obtain an attorney fee award. §§ 553(c)(2)(C), 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). “[T]o qualify as a
prevailing party, a . . . plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his
claim.” Cf. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992) (interpreting similarly-worded
statute). “The plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from
whom fees are sought . . . or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement.”
Id. (internal citations omitted).
In this case, although Joe Hand’s motion to strike affirmative defenses was
granted by default, Joe Hand has not “obtain[ed] an enforceable judgment against the
2
defendant from whom fees are sought . . . or comparable relief through a consent
decree or settlement.” Id.; cf. Parallel Iron LLC v. NetApp, Inc, 84 F. Supp. 3d 352, 355
(D. Del. 2015) (“The Court did not grant fees under [35 U.S.C.] § 285 because
Defendant was not a ‘prevailing party,’ since the suit was resolved by way of a license
agreement and not a decision on the merits.”). Therefore, Joe Hand’s motion for
attorney fees, Docket Item 12, is denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 15, 2019
Buffalo, New York
s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?