KMS Tech, Inc. v. G Mission Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-01041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In KMS Tech v. G Mission, Judge Figueredo denied G Mission’s request to reconsider a $4,449 attorneys’ fee award.
G Mission, Inc., whose motion to reconsider the $4,449 attorneys’ fee award was denied, and KMS Tech, Inc., which remained subject to the fee award described in the opinion.
What happened
KMS Tech, Inc. v. G Mission, Inc. concerns G Mission’s request to reconsider an award requiring KMS Tech to pay $4,449 in attorneys’ fees. The fees related to G Mission’s work on part of its summary-judgment brief.
G Mission argued that the court had calculated the award incorrectly and should have awarded more, including the full cost of its summary-judgment briefing. KMS Tech opposed the request. The court concluded that G Mission’s arguments either raised issues already decided, disagreed with the court’s application of the law, or identified no controlling authority or other basis for reconsideration.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied G Mission’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- KMS Tech, Inc. v. G Mission Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01041
- George Daniels
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered KMS Tech, Inc. to pay G Mission, Inc. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs connected to G Mission’s preparation of the portion of its summary-judgment brief arguing that KMS Tech could not prove copyright infringement without a copy of the certified copyright deposit with the Copyright Office. On June 12, 2024, the court memorialized an award of $4,449.
G Mission moved for reconsideration of the fee calculation on June 26, 2024. KMS Tech opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice that needs correction. The standard is strict and does not permit a party to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the case.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected G Mission’s argument that it was entitled to the full cost of its summary-judgment briefing. The court had already concluded in February 2023 that G Mission was entitled only to part of those costs, and it had denied G Mission’s earlier motion challenging that decision on August 7, 2023. The court therefore found that repeating the argument was untimely and was not a proper basis for reconsidering the June 2024 fee calculation.
The court also rejected G Mission’s argument that the award should have been higher because courts had awarded larger amounts in other cases. The court explained that attorneys’ fee awards are case-specific and depend on the work performed, the reasonableness of the hourly rates, and the hours spent. G Mission identified no case requiring a larger award here. The court likewise concluded that G Mission’s disagreement with excluding certain work from the fee calculation was not a proper basis for reconsideration.
The court considered G Mission’s remaining arguments and found them meritless to the extent they were not specifically addressed.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied G Mission, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 165.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.