Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kate Spade v. Vinci Brands, Judge Schofield adopted a report, held Himatsingka in contempt, and ordered payment of Vinci’s reasonable fees and costs.
Himatsingka America, Inc. was held in contempt and directed to pay Vinci Brands LLC’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs caused by the contempt. Vinci must submit a fee application by August 19, 2025.
What happened
Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC involved a subpoena that Vinci Brands LLC served on nonparty Himatsingka America, Inc. for documents. Himatsingka did not respond, even after the court ordered it to produce the documents or explain why it should not be held in contempt.
A magistrate judge recommended finding Himatsingka in contempt and ordering it to pay Vinci’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs caused by the contempt. No one objected to that recommendation, and the district court found no clear error in the record.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the recommendation, held Himatsingka in contempt for failing to respond to Vinci’s subpoena, and directed Himatsingka to pay Vinci’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Vinci must submit its fee request by August 19, 2025; the order does not state the amount.
The detailed version
- Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05409
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
The order concerns nonparty Himatsingka America, Inc.’s failure to respond to a document subpoena issued by Vinci Brands LLC. According to the adopted report and recommendation:
- Vinci issued the subpoena on November 8, 2024, and notified the parties. - The subpoena was served on Himatsingka’s registered agent on November 11, 2024. - Himatsingka did not respond, and calls to its public telephone number went unanswered. - On January 2, 2025, the court ordered Himatsingka to produce responsive documents by January 17, 2025, or explain why it should not be held in contempt. - Himatsingka received the subpoena and the January 2 order by certified mail, email, and service on its registered agent, but did not comply or otherwise respond. - On April 9, 2025, the court issued an order requiring Himatsingka to explain its failure to comply and to show why the matter should not be treated as submitted without opposition and sanctions should not be imposed.
Report and recommendation
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued a report and recommendation on May 1, 2025. The report recommended holding Himatsingka in contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), which permits a court to hold in contempt a person who, after being served, fails without an adequate excuse to obey a subpoena or a related court order. The report also recommended that Himatsingka pay Vinci’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred because of the contempt.
No objection was filed. When no timely objection is made to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge reviews the record for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It held Himatsingka in contempt for failing to respond to Vinci’s subpoena and directed Himatsingka to pay Vinci’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of the contempt. Vinci was directed to submit a fee application by August 19, 2025. The order does not specify the amount of fees or costs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.