From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Chong

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 21, 2014
No. 13 Civ. 3846 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2014)

Summary

finding an hourly rate of $205 per hour to be a reasonable rate for a paralegal

Summary of this case from Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n v. Triumph Mar. Ltd.

Opinion

No. 13 Civ. 3846 (RA)

11-21-2014

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW CHONG, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

:

On September 12, 2013, this Court entered a default judgment against Defendant Andrew Chong (formerly identified under the alias Andrew Leung), and granted Plaintiffs six months to conduct discovery as to damages. (Dkt. 26.) On September 13, 2013, the Court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to conduct an inquest and issue a report and recommendation concerning Plaintiffs' damages. (Dkt. 27.) Plaintiffs sought $125,874.15 in total damages. (Dkt. 41.) On July 14, 2014, Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending a total award of $116,915.65. (Dkt. 45.) Judge Netburn concluded that Plaintiffs provided a sufficient basis for the award of damages as requested, but found it appropriate to reduce the attorneys' fees sought. (Id.)

A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the report], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

Here, although the Report provided that "[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections" (Report at 15), as determined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and (d), no party has done so. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report for clear error and, after careful review of the record, finds none. Judge Netburn's thorough and well-reasoned Report is therefore adopted in its entirety, and Plaintiffs should be awarded $116,915.65.

Finally, the Court notes that "[w]here, as here, the magistrate judge's report states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then failure to object generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review." Kashelkar v. Village of Spring Valley, 320 F. App'x 53, 54 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F. 3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Report, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded $116,915.65 in damages. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2014

New York, New York

/s/_________

Ronnie Abrams

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Chong

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 21, 2014
No. 13 Civ. 3846 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2014)

finding an hourly rate of $205 per hour to be a reasonable rate for a paralegal

Summary of this case from Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n v. Triumph Mar. Ltd.

finding $375 an hour to be an unreasonably high rate for an associate with seven years of experience and listing cases

Summary of this case from Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC

finding $375 an hour to be an unreasonably high rate for an associate with seven years of experience and listing cases

Summary of this case from BWP Media U.S., Inc. v. Kpopstars, Inc.

approving $180/hour for librarian

Summary of this case from Euro Pac. Capital Inc. v. Bohai Pharms. Grp., Inc.

approving $180-205 paralegal rate

Summary of this case from Tabatznik v. Turner

approving $180-205 paralegal rate

Summary of this case from Tabatznik v. Turner

deeming a Lanham Act case exceptional and awarding attorney's fees where party, inter alia, "frustrated the litigation process by failing to participate, . . . obstructed the plaintiffs and caused unnecessary delay"

Summary of this case from KX Techs., LLC v. Zuma Water Filters, Inc.

awarding attorney's fees in Lanham Act case deemed exceptional where party, among other factors, "frustrated the litigation process by failing to participate, ... obstructed the plaintiffs and caused unnecessary delay"

Summary of this case from KX Tech LLC v. Dilmen LLC

awarding attorneys' fees in Lanham Act case where party, among other factors, "frustrated the litigation process by failing to participate, obstructed the plaintiffs and caused unnecessary delay . . ."

Summary of this case from Vidivixi, LLC v. Grattan
Case details for

Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Chong

Case Details

Full title:SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW CHONG…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 21, 2014

Citations

No. 13 Civ. 3846 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2014)

Citing Cases

Vidivixi, LLC v. Grattan

In short, the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claims were objectively unreasonable, motivated by a competitive ploy to…

Travel Leaders Grp. v. Corley

Finally, the invoice contains an excessive number of entries that are vague or “block-billed, ” making it…