Murray v. Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Magistrate Judge Aaron denied Montroy DeMarco Architecture’s motion in Murray v. Montroy DeMarco Architecture to require a $10,000 costs bond.
The ruling affected Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP’s request for a costs bond and David Murray, who was not required by this order to post the requested bond.
What happened
In Murray v. Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP, the defendant asked the court to require David Murray to post at least $10,000 as security for potential costs. Murray, represented by the Liebowitz Law Firm, had brought claims under the Copyright Act and rejected the defendant’s settlement offer under Rule 68.
The court recognized that courts have discretion to require a costs bond and that judges in the district had reached different results in similar cases involving the Liebowitz firm. It agreed with decisions declining to require such a bond and denied the defendant’s motion.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the opinion and order on October 8, 2020. The order denied Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP’s motion for a costs bond.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP · No. 1:20-cv-03864
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 8, 2020
Background
Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP moved under Local Civil Rule 54.2 for David Murray to post a bond of at least $10,000 as security for costs. Murray was represented by the Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC, and had rejected the defendant’s offer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The underlying case alleged claims under the Copyright Act.
Local Civil Rule 54.2 allows the court to order a party to file a bond for costs in an amount and on conditions the court sets. The opinion states that courts have broad discretion over whether to require such a bond. It also notes that judges in the Southern District of New York had reached different results in similar circumstances involving clients of the Liebowitz Law Firm.
Court’s Reasoning
The court acknowledged the defendant’s concerns that attorney Richard Liebowitz had frequently been sanctioned and that Murray’s rejection of the Rule 68 offer might have been intended to use the expense of defending the case as leverage for a settlement exceeding Murray’s damages. The court nevertheless agreed with the reasoning of the decision in Seidman v. Authentic Brands Group LLC and relied essentially on the same reasons.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Montroy DeMarco Architecture LLP’s motion for Murray to post a costs bond. The opinion did not decide the merits of Murray’s Copyright Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.