G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Sanchez Torres
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-03487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In G&G Closed Circuit Events v. Sanchez Torres, Judge Abrams granted the fee motion with reductions, awarding $2,563.02 and denying investigative costs without prejudice.
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC received a reduced award of attorneys’ fees and allowed costs. Manuel Sanchez Torres and Mi Lugar Restaurant Corp. remained subject to the fee-and-cost award entered after the default judgment. G&G’s request for $650 in investigative costs was denied without prejudice.
What happened
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued Manuel Sanchez Torres and Mi Lugar Restaurant Corp. under federal communications laws, alleging that the defendants showed a boxing match at their restaurant without authorization. The court had already entered a $10,800 default judgment for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff then requested $3,233 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court accepted the requested hourly rates but reduced the claimed attorney time by 10% because some work was excessive, including reviewing basic scheduling entries. The court also found that the plaintiff had not provided enough information to support $650 in investigative costs, although it allowed service-of-process and filing costs.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the motion with modifications. The court awarded $2,563.02 in total fees and costs, based on 10.49 hours of attorney and paralegal work plus allowed costs, and denied the investigative-cost request without prejudice.
The detailed version
- G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Sanchez Torres · No. 1:20-cv-03487
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 8, 2021
Background
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC brought claims under Sections 553 and 605 of the federal communications laws, alleging that Manuel Sanchez Torres, individually and doing business as Mi Lugar Restaurant, El Rey del Taco, and La Esquinita, and Mi Lugar Restaurant Corp. exhibited a boxing match at the restaurant in violation of G&G’s exclusive license. After the defendants failed to respond, the court entered a default judgment on January 12, 2021, awarding G&G $10,800 in statutory damages.
G&G then moved for $3,233 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The request included fees for 11.65 hours of work, investigative costs, service-of-process costs, and filing fees.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court held that the default judgment entitled G&G to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(b)(iii). It approved an hourly rate of $350 for lead counsel Robert Hunter, based on his experience and the rates awarded in similar cases. It also approved a $100 hourly rate for paralegal services.
The court accepted billing records reconstructed from the case files, even though G&G had not provided contemporaneous time records, because the records contained enough detail to evaluate the claimed work. However, the court found that some billed time was excessive. For example, the records included 30 minutes for reviewing a four-sentence docket entry assigning the case to the court. The court therefore reduced the requested hours by 10%, from 11.65 to 10.49 hours.
Costs
G&G sought $650 for an investigator’s work. The court did not decide whether investigative costs are generally recoverable under Section 605. Instead, it found that G&G had not adequately shown that the charge was reasonable. The redacted invoice did not describe the work performed, the time spent, or the investigator’s qualifications. The court therefore denied the request for investigative fees without prejudice.
The court awarded costs for service of process and filing fees because G&G submitted invoices for those expenses and a prevailing party is entitled to recover them.
Ruling
The court granted G&G’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, subject to the stated modifications. The award totaled $2,563.02, consisting of $1,291.50 for attorney time, $680 for paralegal time, and $591.52 in allowed costs. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 36.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.