Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Fossils, Inc. et al

Filing 66

ORDER For the reasons stated in the Report, the findings and conclusions of which are fully adopted by the Court, plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Default Judgment 37 is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be and is entered jointly and sev erally against defendants Fossils, Inc. d/b/a 5127 Restaurant and Lounge, John Park, Fazal Khan, Munazza Khan, andDennis J. Park in the amount of$25,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17U.S.C. § 504, plus $3,789.09 in attorney's fees and costs with interest on this judgment at the federal interest rate established in 28 U.S.C. § 1961,starting from the date of this judgment until fully paid. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 7/7/15. (See Order for further details). (gwalk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., etal.
Plaintiffs,

l:14-cv-755 (LMB/IDD)

V.

FOSSILS, INC., etal..
Defendants.

ORDER

On May 28,2015, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")

in which he reconmiended that a defaultjudgment in the amount of $25,000 plus $3,789.09 in
attorney's fees and costs be awarded to the plaintiffs, as well as injunctive relief based upon the

defendants' having infringed plaintiffs' copyrighted musical works. The parties were advised
that any objections to the Report had to be filed within 14 days and that failure to file timely

objections waived appellate review of the judgment based on the Report.
On June 11,2015, defendants filed their objection in which they opposed the $25,000

damages award, arguing that it was excessive in that it exceeded what was necessary to
compensate plaintiffs and to deter infringement. Defendants then argued that the Court needed
to consider various factors, but failed to do so. Plaintiffs have replied to the objection, pointing
out that defendants failed in their objection to articulate any relevant facts which the magistrate
judge ignored. In addition to not describing any facts, the defendants misstated what the
magistrate judge did find. Specifically, the Report documented the three-year history of

plaintiffs warning defendants about their infringing activities, including making 31 telephone