From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Verch v. Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 17, 2020
19-CV-5923 (RPK) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2020)

Opinion

19-CV-5923 (RPK) (RML)

12-17-2020

MARCO VERCH, Plaintiff, v. SEA BREEZE SYRUPS, INC., Defendant.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

:

Plaintiff Marco Verch brings this copyright infringement action against defendant Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc. See Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff is a professional photographer who licenses his photographs to online and print media for a fee. See id. ¶ 5. The complaint alleges that defendant reproduced and displayed one of plaintiff's licensed photographs on defendant's website without authorization, in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501. See id. ¶¶ 7-16. After defendant failed to respond to the complaint, plaintiff moved for default judgment. See Mot. for Default J. (Dkt. #9).

On August 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Levy issued a report and recommendation ("R. & R.") recommending that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted. See generally R. & R. (Dkt. #15). Judge Levy further recommends that plaintiff be awarded $1,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504, as well as $1,575 in attorney's fees and $440 in costs, for a total of $3,015. See id. at 13. No party objected to the R. & R. within 14 days of service, the time required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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). As a general matter, when no party has objected to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the Court reviews the recommendation for "clear error." Alvarez Sosa v. Barr, 369 F. Supp. 3d 492, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citation omitted); see Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note to 1983 addition). Clear error will only be found when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339-40 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)).

I have reviewed Judge Levy's R. & R. and, having found no clear error, adopt it in full. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted and plaintiff is awarded $3,015.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Rachel Kovner

RACHEL P. KOVNER

United States District Judge Dated: December 17, 2020

Brooklyn, New York


Summaries of

Verch v. Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 17, 2020
19-CV-5923 (RPK) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2020)
Case details for

Verch v. Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARCO VERCH, Plaintiff, v. SEA BREEZE SYRUPS, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Dec 17, 2020

Citations

19-CV-5923 (RPK) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2020)

Citing Cases

Parsons v. Bong Mines Entm't LLC

However, absent additional evidence of willfulness or allegations of actual awareness of the infringing…