LONG et al v. EQUICROSS, INC. et al

Filing 41

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan 38 , the Objections to same filed by Equicross, Inc. and Airus Media, Inc. ("Defendants") 39 , and the Brief in Oppositi on thereto filed by William J. Long, III and Long Hauling and Excavating, Inc. (collectively "Long") 40 , and after conducting a de novo review of the files on record as to the Motion to Enforce Injunction and Settlement Agreement filed by Defendants 29 , including the parties Settlement Agreement, ( 25 -1), the Stipulated Injunction and Order 27 , Defendants' Motion 29 , Long's Brief in Response 30 , and Defendants' Reply 34 , it is hereby ordered that, for reaso ns more fully stated in said Order, Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan 39 are overruled; that the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan 38 is adopted as the Opinion of this Court, except that this Courts Order below will reflect a more precise disposition of Defendants Motion as granted, in part and denied, in part; that consistent with Chief Judge Lenihan's Report and Recommendation, Defendant s' Motion to Enforce Injunction and Settlement Agreement 29 is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Such Motion is granted to the extent that Long must provide a new draft Data Protocol from the Computer Consultant within 20 days of this Or der. Such Motion is denied to the extent that Defendants seek fees and costs associated with the filing and pursuit of enforcement of the settlement against Long and insofar as Defendants request that the duration of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement be extended. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/9/14. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

WILLIAM J. LONG, III, and LONG
HAULING & EXCAVATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs and Counter -Defendants,
vs.
EQUICROSS, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, and AIRUS MEDIAL,
INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION.
Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-61
Judge Nora Barry Fischer

ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2014, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan, (Docket No. [38]), the
Objections to same filed by Equicross, Inc. and Airus Media, Inc. (“Defendants”), (Docket No.
[39]), and the Brief in Opposition thereto filed by William J. Long, III and Long Hauling and
Excavating, Inc. (collectively “Long”), (Docket No. [40]), and after conducting a de novo review
of the files on record as to the Motion to Enforce Injunction and Settlement Agreement filed by
Defendants (Docket No. [29]), including the parties’ Settlement Agreement, (Docket No. [25-1]),
the Stipulated Injunction and Order (Docket No. [27]), Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. [29]),
Long’s Brief in Response, (Docket No. [30]), and Defendants’ Reply, (Docket No. [34]),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan [39] are OVERRULED. To this end, the
Court finds that Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan did not err by denying Defendants’ request for
“all fees and costs incurred by Equicross in seeking the enforcement of the Agreement and the
1

Injunction” because neither the parties’ Settlement Agreement nor the Stipulated Injunction and
Order authorize Defendants’ purported recovery of “all fees and costs” which they requested and
they have not submitted any evidence (such as attorney billing records or invoices for costs) in
support of their bare request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Instead, both the Settlement

Agreement and the Stipulation and Injunction Order expressly provide that in the event of a
breach, Long shall be ordered “to pay all reasonable fees and costs incurred by EquiCross in
seeking the enforcement” of same.

Id. (emphasis added). As to Defendants’ objection that the

Settlement Agreement was improperly interpreted by Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan,
Pennsylvania law is well established that an agreement for one of the parties to pay “reasonable”
attorney’s fees and costs in the event of a breach does not authorize the award of “all” of the
opponent’s attorney’s fees and costs, particularly where only a partial breach occurred.

See

Evergreen Comm. Power LLC v. Riggs Distler & Co., Inc., 513 F. App’x 236, 239-40 (3d Cir.
2013) (affirming District Court’s decision “that it would not be ‘reasonable’ to award [plaintiff]
all of its claimed attorneys’ fees given its limited success at trial”).

With respect to the

Stipulated Order and Injunction, this Court retains inherent authority to interpret its own Orders,
see E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 877 F. Supp. 2d 278, n.5 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 26, 2012), and Chief
Magistrate Judge Lenihan’s recommendation that the Stipulation and Order should be interpreted
by the Court in a manner to deny the request for “all fees and costs” because Long adopted “a
non-frivolous – albeit unsuccessful” position in opposition to the motion to enforce settlement
rather than engaged in bad faith and/or vexatious litigation conduct is reasonable and adopted by
this Court.

For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion for all fees and costs in conjunction with

enforcement of the settlement is appropriately denied because it lacks both legal and factual
support.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Chief
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan (Docket No. [38]) is adopted as the Opinion of this Court,
except that this Court’s Order below will reflect a more precise disposition of Defendant’s
Motion as granted, in part and denied, in part;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Chief Judge Lenihan’s Report and
Recommendation, Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Injunction and Settlement Agreement [29] is
GRANTED, IN PART and DENIED, IN PART. Such Motion is granted to the extent that
Long must provide a new draft Data Protocol from the Computer Consultant within twenty (20)
days of this Order. Such Motion is denied to the extent that Defendants seek fees and costs
associated with the filing and pursuit of enforcement of the settlement against Long and insofar
as Defendants request that the duration of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
Settlement Agreement be extended.

BY THE COURT:

s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge

cc/ecf: All counsel of record
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

3