Cortes-Ramos v. Sony Corporation of America et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Granting 66 Motion for Attorneys Fees. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 11/2/2016. (MET)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

3
4

LUIS ADRIAN CORTES-RAMOS

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et

8

al.,

9

Defendants.

CASE NO. 14-1578 (GAG)

10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11
Pending before the Court is a renewed motion for attorneys’ fees filed by Sony ATV
12
Music Publishing, LLC, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics, Inc, Sony Music Brazil,
13
Sony Music Holdings Inc., Sony Pictures Television, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). After
14
reviewing the parties’ submissions and pertinent law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ renewed
15
motion for attorneys’ fees at Docket No. 66.
16
The Court finds that the subject claim was merely “objectively weak.” The First Circuit
17
has interpreted Supreme Court’s “evenhanded” approach from Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S.
18
517, 521 (1994) as allowing an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party if the opposing
19
party's claims are “objectively quite weak.” Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., 658 F.3d
20
100, 108 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted); see also Garcia–Goyco v. Law Envtl.
21
Consultants, Inc., 428 F.3d 14, 20–21 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that this court has applied the
22
Fogerty factors in affirming awards of attorneys’ fees where the plaintiff’s copyright claim was
23
24

Civil No. 14-1578 (GAG)
1

neither frivolous nor instituted in bad faith, but was objectively quite weak). Thus, it awards costs

2

in the amount of $4,176.80, as well as attorneys’ fees.

3

The Court hereby approves the hourly fee of $290.00, as well as hours worked by attorney

4

Jorge Peirats. The Court, however, understands that a similar rate for work performed by attorney

5

David C. Rose is warranted. Counsel Rose appears pro hac vice (Docket No. 16) and charges at a

6

higher rate than Counsel Peirats who has more years of experience practicing law and is equally

7

capable. More so, other counsel from Rose’s firm bill for their fees, however these have not been

8

admitted pro hac vice. Although Plaintiff does not challenge their rates, the Court finds that it

9

should not automatically compensate the work of non pro hac vice counsel. Accordingly, the

10

Court shall reduce the court ordered attorneys’ fees sought by forty (40) percent. In other words,

11

the Court will award sixty (60) percent of the amount requested in attorneys’ fees. This will also

12

avoid payment for any duplicative work by local and pro hac vice counsel.
Consequently, the Court awards Defendants a total amount of $47,601.78 in attorneys’

13
14

fees.

15

SO ORDERED.

16

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 2nd day of November, 2016.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí

17

GUSTAVO A. GELPI

18

United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24

2