wenn K v. SONDER HOSPITALITY USA, INC.
- 1:22-cv-07462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In wenn K v. SONDER HOSPITALITY USA, INC., the court granted Sonder’s fee motion in part and awarded $266,817.96.
Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc. received an award of $266,817.96 for attorney’s fees and costs. The judgment directs Rose Leaf to pay that amount. The caption identifies the plaintiff as wenn K, but the provided text does not explain the reference to Rose Leaf.
What happened
In wenn K v. SONDER HOSPITALITY USA, INC., the judgment concerns Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc.’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the case. The judgment refers to an earlier court order dated September 4, 2025, but that order is not included here.
The court granted Sonder’s motion for fees and costs in part and ruled that Sonder could recover the fees and costs it incurred in defending the matter. It ordered Rose Leaf to pay $266,817.96, consisting of $260,768.50 in attorney’s fees and $6,049.46 in costs. The court did not award Sonder prejudgment interest on those amounts.
The judgment was entered on September 5, 2025, by the court; the opinion text does not identify the judge who issued the underlying order. The caption names the plaintiff as wenn K, while the payment provision refers to Rose Leaf, and the text does not explain that discrepancy.
The detailed version
- wenn K v. SONDER HOSPITALITY USA, INC. · No. 1:22-cv-07462
- Sept. 5, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a judgment concerning Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. It stated that, for the reasons given in the court’s September 4, 2025 order, Sonder’s motion was granted in part.
Award
The judgment ruled that Sonder was entitled to recover the fees and costs it incurred in defending the matter. It ordered Rose Leaf to pay a total of $266,817.96, made up of:
- $260,768.50 in attorney’s fees; and - $6,049.46 in costs.
The judgment also states that Sonder was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the attorney’s fees and costs. It explains that, in a diversity case, state law governs an award of prejudgment interest.
Unclear party reference
The caption identifies the plaintiff as “wenn K,” but the payment provision directs “Rose Leaf” to pay the award. The opinion text does not explain whether Rose Leaf is the same party, a related party, or a different party. The September 4 order that supplied the stated reasons is not included in the provided text.
Disposition
Sonder’s motion for fees and costs was granted in part. The judgment awarded Sonder $266,817.96 and denied prejudgment interest on the attorney’s fees and costs. The provided text identifies the court clerk, Tammi M. Hellwig, but does not name the judge who issued the underlying order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.