From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Amar Hotels, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 16, 2008
05 Civ. 10100 (KMW) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2008)

Summary

finding 95.1 hours expended in obtaining a default judgement "astounding"

Summary of this case from 6D Global Techs., Inc. v. Beilu

Opinion

05 Civ. 10100 (KMW) (KNF).

June 16, 2008


ORDER


By order dated December 21, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for (1) default judgment against Defendant Amar Hotels, Inc. ("Amar"); and (2) attorney fees pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Court referred this action to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathanial Fox for an inquest into damages and attorney fees.

By Report and Recommendation dated May 2, 2008 (the "Report"), Magistrate Judge Fox recommended that the Court award Plaintiff: "(1) $37,557.23 in recurring fees; (2) prejudgment interest, at nine percent per year, on the $37,557.23 of recurring fees, computed from July 18, 2003; (3) $60,000 in liquidated damages; (4) prejudgment interest, at nine percent per year, on $60,000 of liquidated damages, computed from August 17, 2003; (5) $241 in costs; (6) $5,014.38 in attorney fees; and (7) postjudgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)[, from the date default judgment is entered]." Report 16.

The Report informed the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), they had ten days from service of the Report to serve and file any objections. The Report also informed the parties of their opportunity to request an extension of time to file objections. Finally, the Report explicitly cautioned that failure to file timely objections would preclude appellate review.

No objections have been filed, and the time to object has expired. See IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993). The Second Circuit "ha[s] adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision," Small v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989), and "[t]he Supreme Court upheld this practice, at least when the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object," id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).

Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the Report, and finds it to be well-reasoned and free of any "clear error on the face of the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note;see also Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The Court therefore accepts and adopts the Report.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter default judgment against Amar in the following amounts: (1) $37,557.23 in recurring fees; (2) prejudgment interest, at nine percent per year, on the $37,557.23 of recurring fees, computed from July 18, 2003; (3) $60,000 in liquidated damages; (4) prejudgment interest, at nine percent per year, on the $60,000 of liquidated damages, computed from August 17, 2003; (5) $241 in costs; and (6) $5,014.38 in attorney fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), Plaintiff is also entitled to postjudgment interest from the date default judgment is entered. Because there are no remaining issues in this action, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are moot.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Amar Hotels, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 16, 2008
05 Civ. 10100 (KMW) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2008)

finding 95.1 hours expended in obtaining a default judgement "astounding"

Summary of this case from 6D Global Techs., Inc. v. Beilu

reducing attorneys' fees by seventy-five percent because “a substantial amount of work performed ... was redundant and unnecessarily duplicative”

Summary of this case from Marion S. Mishkin Law Office v. Lopalo

reducing requested hours by 75%

Summary of this case from Shanfa Li v. Chinatown Take-Out, Inc.

reducing award by 75% because the bill was “grossly excessive relative to the nature of the work performed”

Summary of this case from Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

reducing the overall fee award by 75% for overbilling

Summary of this case from Medina v. Donaldson

reducing attorneys' fees by seventy-five percent because "a substantial amount of work performed . . . was redundant and unnecessarily duplicative"

Summary of this case from Guallpa v. NY Pro Signs Inc.

reducing fees where vague entries "do not aid the Court in understanding the nature of the work performed and whether the work involved research, review, revision, or a combination of any of those or other tasks"

Summary of this case from Lane Crawford LLC v. Kelex Trading (CA) Inc.

reducing fees by 75 percent

Summary of this case from Agudelo v. E & D LLC

reducing fees where vague entries "do not aid the Court in understanding the nature of the work performed and whether the work involved research, review, revision, or a combination of any of those or other tasks"

Summary of this case from Lucerne Textiles, Inc. v. H.C.T. Textiles Co.

reducing attorneys' fee by seventy-five percent when "a substantial amount of work performed . . . was redundant and unnecessarily duplicative"

Summary of this case from Maldonado v. La Nueva Rampa, Inc.

reducing attorneys' fee by seventy-five percent when “a substantial amount of work performed ... was redundant and unnecessarily duplicative”

Summary of this case from Gurung v. Malhotra

reducing attorneys' fee by seventy-five percent when “a substantial amount of work performed ... was redundant and unnecessarily duplicative”

Summary of this case from Taaffe v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am.

reducing plaintiff's fees by 75 percent from $20,057.54 to $5,014.38 because the case involved a settled area of law and the defendant defaulted

Summary of this case from Chanel, Inc. v. Gardner

reducing award by 75% because the bill was "grossly excessive relative to the nature of the work performed"

Summary of this case from Reveyoso v. Town Sports Int'l LLC
Case details for

Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Amar Hotels, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAYS INN WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware Corporation Plaintiff, v. AMAR…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jun 16, 2008

Citations

05 Civ. 10100 (KMW) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2008)

Citing Cases

Fluor Corp. v. Citadel Equity Fund Ltd.

Ultimately, the Court's goal is to determine a fee that "is market-based, or in other words, 'the rate a…

Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc.

; Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Amar Hotels, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 10100 (KMW) (KNF), 2008 WL 2485407, at …