Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2025

Koutsoudakis & Iakovou Law Group, PLLC v. Bulent

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:22-cv-06351
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ContractCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

Koutsoudakis v. Bulent: Judge Ramos awarded $105,425.66 plus interest on a breach-of-contract claim and denied attorneys’ fees and costs.

Who this affects

Koutsoudakis & Iakovou Law Group, PLLC received $105,425.66 plus the specified prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Bulent Osman and J. Streicher, LLC were held jointly and severally liable for those amounts. The Firm’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs was denied. The claims against Joseph Auddino had previously been dismissed.

What happened

Koutsoudakis & Iakovou Law Group, PLLC sued Bulent Osman, Joseph Auddino, and J. Streicher, LLC, asserting several claims, including breach of contract. The court had previously dismissed the claims against Auddino and entered default judgment against Osman and J. Streicher after they did not respond.

The court referred the question of damages to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. She recommended awarding damages only on the breach-of-contract claim, holding Osman and J. Streicher jointly responsible for $105,425.66, plus interest, and denying the Firm’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. No party objected to that recommendation.

Judge Edgardo Ramos adopted the recommendation, awarded the specified damages and interest, denied the request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Koutsoudakis & Iakovou Law Group, PLLC v. Bulent · No. 1:22-cv-06351
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Apr. 23, 2025

Background

Koutsoudakis & Iakovou Law Group, PLLC (the “Firm”) brought claims against Bulent Osman, Joseph Auddino, and J. Streicher, LLC for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The Court granted Auddino’s motion to dismiss in August 2023. The Firm later filed an amended complaint concerning Osman and J. Streicher, who had not responded to the action.

After a show-cause hearing, the Court granted the Firm’s motion for default judgment against Osman and J. Streicher on September 29, 2023, leaving the amount of damages to be determined. The Court referred the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for an inquest. The Firm submitted proposed factual findings and legal conclusions, and no response was submitted.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Cave recommended that the Firm receive damages on its breach-of-contract claim only. She recommended that Osman and J. Streicher be held jointly and severally liable—that is, each would be responsible for the full amount—for $105,425.66, prejudgment interest at nine percent per year calculated from September 17, 2021 through the date judgment is entered, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. She also recommended denying the Firm’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

The parties had fourteen days to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation, but no objections were filed. Without objections, the Court could adopt the recommendation if the record showed no clear error. The Court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise.

Ruling

The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Cave’s recommendation. It awarded the Firm damages on the breach-of-contract claim only and held Osman and J. Streicher jointly and severally liable for $105,425.66, prejudgment interest at nine percent per year from September 17, 2021 through the date judgment is entered, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The Court denied the Firm’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Disposition

The damages award was entered against Osman and J. Streicher on the breach-of-contract claim only. The attorneys’ fees and costs request was denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.