Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000751.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:32:49+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Sid Bernstein Presents, LLC v. Apple Corps Ltd.
Sid Bernstein Presents, LLC v. Apple Corps Ltd.
APPLE CORPS LIMITED and SUBAFILMS LIMITED, Defendants.
GEORGE B. DANIELS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
There is no clear error on the face of the record as to those portions of the report to which no objections were made. This Court considered the issues raised in Plaintiffs and Defendants' objections and reviewed de novo the objected-to portions of the Report. This Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fox's recommendation that Defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, and REJECTS the recommendation that such costs cannot be reasonably calculated.
Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants' reasonable fees in the amount of $83, 417.45 and costs in the amount of $1, 159.01.
A court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations set forth within a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objections to the Report are made, the court may adopt the report if "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted).
When there are objections to the report, the court must make a de novo determination as to the objected-to portions of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Rivera v. Barnhart, 423 F.Supp.2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). It is sufficient that this Court "arrive at its own, independent conclusions" regarding those portions to which objections were made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (internal citation omitted); see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980). However, where a litigant's objections are conclusory, repetitious, or perfunctory, the standard of review is clear error. McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F.Supp.2d 542, 547-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Courts have discretion in deciding whether to award costs and attorneys' fees. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 533 (1994). In exercising this discretion, courts deciding whether to award costs and attorneys' fees under § 505 should consider "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness, and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence." Porto v. Guirgis, 659 F.Supp.2d 597, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534 n.19) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In calculating the amount of attorneys' fees to award, courts may consider other factors, including the financial resources of the losing party. See Peyser v. Searle Blatt & Co., No. 99 Civ. 10785 (WK), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20844, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2001) ("The aims of the Copyright Act are compensation and deterrence where appropriate, but not ruination.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 505
 v. 
 v.