Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2025

Patsy’s Brand v. Realty

Full caption

Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Patsy’s Inc., Frank Brija, John Brecevich, and Nick Tsoulos

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:99-cv-10175
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Patsy’s Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood ordered a revised fee submission excluding certain contempt-related time while allowing intertwined work.

Who this affects

Patsy’s Brand, Inc. and its counsel, whose fee submission must be revised; the defendants and respondents whose contempt-related work is included or excluded from that submission.

What happened

Patsy’s Brand, Inc. sought reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs related to its contempt motion. In an earlier order, the court held I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Frank Brija, and Respondent Brian Roffe in contempt and ordered reimbursement of reasonable fees and costs.

This order clarified which time entries had to be removed from the fee request. Plaintiff’s counsel must remove pre-October 23, 2024 entries concerning Respondents Nexhmije Nezaj, Muharrem Memishaj, and Adem Brija, and must file the supplemental memorandum by September 26, 2025. Counsel may keep time for combined tasks that were closely connected to the contempt motion against Frank Brija.

Judge Kimba M. Wood stated that the court would not accept further briefing beyond the required supplemental memorandum. This order clarifies the fee-submission process; it does not state the final amount of fees or costs to be awarded.

The detailed version

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

Case
Patsy’s Brand v. Realty · No. 1:99-cv-10175
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
Sept. 19, 2025

Background

Patsy’s Brand, Inc.’s counsel sought attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing a motion to hold Defendants I.O.B. Realty, Inc. and Frank Brija, along with Respondents Nexhmije Nezaj, Muharrem Memishaj, and Brian Roffe, in contempt. Counsel’s initial fee submission included invoices with time entries through October 23, 2024. Counsel also asked permission to submit a later supplemental application for work expected to include efforts concerning Respondent Adem Brija and a deposition of Respondent Roffe.

In an August 15, 2025 Opinion and Order, the Court held I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Frank Brija, and Respondent Roffe in contempt. It ordered the defendants to reimburse Patsy’s Brand for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the contempt motion. The Court instructed counsel to submit documentation for fees and costs incurred after October 23, 2024, excluding time spent on the contempt motion against Respondents Nezaj, Muharrem Memishaj, and Adem Brija.

Clarification and Ruling

Patsy’s Brand’s counsel submitted the later memorandum and removed the specified time from the post-October 23, 2024 invoices, but had not removed that time from the earlier invoices. Judge Kimba M. Wood clarified that counsel must also remove from the pre-October 23, 2024 invoices time concerning Respondents Nezaj, Memishaj, and Adem Brija. The Court gave examples of entries that must be removed, including entries expressly referring to those respondents.

Counsel did not have to remove time spent on combined tasks, including cross-examination of Nezaj and Memishaj during the September 26, 2024 evidentiary hearing. The Court said that work was closely connected to the contempt motion against Frank Brija and helped show that Brija used the respondents’ names to violate the injunction. Counsel had to submit the supplemental memorandum by September 26, 2025, and the Court would accept no further briefing beyond that memorandum.

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.