United King Film Distribution Ltd v. Does 1-10 d/b/a Sdarot.com
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-11026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In United King Film Distribution Ltd. v. Does 1-10, Judge Failla awarded copyright plaintiffs $73,474.97 in fees and costs after defendants defaulted.
The six named copyright plaintiffs received an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants identified as Does 1-10 doing business as Israel.TV, Israeli-TV.com, and Sdarot.com were assessed equal shares of the award in their respective cases.
What happened
In United King Film Distribution Ltd. v. Does 1-10 d/b/a Sdarot.com and two related cases, the plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and costs after the defendants failed to respond and the court entered default judgments.
The court found an award appropriate because the defendants’ infringement was extensive and willful, and an award would help deter further infringement. It reduced the requested fees from $92,525.71 to $60,300 because the hourly rate and number of hours billed were too high, but awarded all $13,174.97 in requested costs.
Judge Katherine Failla ordered the fees and costs divided equally among the three cases, assessing $20,100 in fees and $4,391.66 in costs in each case. The order terminated the pending motions.
The detailed version
- United King Film Distribution Ltd v. Does 1-10 d/b/a Sdarot.com · No. 1:21-cv-11026
- Katherine Failla
- May 31, 2022
Background
The order addresses three related copyright-infringement actions: case numbers 21 Civ. 11024, 21 Civ. 11025, and 21 Civ. 11026. The plaintiffs are United King Film Distribution Ltd., D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd., HOT Communication Systems Ltd., Charlton Ltd., Reshet Media Ltd., and Keshet Broadcasting Ltd. The defendants were identified as Does 1-10 doing business as Israel.TV, Israeli-TV.com, or Sdarot.com, respectively.
The plaintiffs obtained expedited discovery and permission to serve the defendants by alternate means. After the defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond, the court entered default judgments on April 26, 2022. The plaintiffs then requested attorneys’ fees of $92,525.71 and costs of $13,174.97 across the three cases.
Legal standard
Under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court may award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party. The court considered factors including the defendants’ default, the extent and willfulness of the infringement, and the need to deter further infringement.
The court calculated the presumptively reasonable fee, also called the lodestar, by considering a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours. It also reviewed whether the billing records included excessive, redundant, or unnecessary work.
Fee calculation
The plaintiffs’ lawyer requested compensation for approximately 168.23 hours at $550 per hour. The court determined that $450 per hour was more reasonable because the firm was small and the cases involved a relatively straightforward theory of recovery. The court also found that some work performed by the lawyer could have been delegated to a more junior lawyer or paralegal, and that travel time had been billed at the full rate.
The court reduced the compensable time by approximately 20%, from about 168.23 hours to 134 hours. At $450 per hour, the resulting attorneys’ fee award was $60,300.
The requested costs covered filing fees, process-server expenses, computer-assisted legal research, and transcript fees. The court found the $13,174.97 in costs adequately supported and traceable to the defendants’ conduct, so it awarded the full amount.
Allocation and ruling
The court found evidence of considerable copyright infringement but not corresponding evidence that the three groups of defendants acted together. Because the billing records and supporting declaration did not permit a more specific allocation, the court divided the total award equally among the three cases.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla awarded $60,300 in attorneys’ fees and $13,174.97 in costs, for a total of $73,474.97. The court assessed $20,100 in fees and $4,391.66 in costs against the defendants in each of cases 21 Civ. 11024, 21 Civ. 11025, and 21 Civ. 11026. The Clerk was directed to file the order in all three cases and terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.