Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 4, 2022

Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. v. Prinatriam Ltd

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-02098
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. v. Prinatriam Ltd, Judge Schofield adopted the damages report, awarding Plaintiff damages, fees, costs, and interest.

Who this affects

Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. received an award of $253,079.43 in damages, $97,136.00 in attorneys’ fees, $437.44 in costs, and post-judgment interest. The judgment applies against all Defendants identified in the earlier default judgment order.

What happened

In Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. v. Prinatriam Ltd, the court reviewed a recommendation about the money Plaintiff should receive after an earlier default judgment against all Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended $253,079.43 in damages, $97,136.00 in attorneys’ fees, $437.44 in costs, and post-judgment interest. Defendants were served with the recommendation, but no timely objections were filed.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment, including the listed amounts and interest under federal law, and to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. v. Prinatriam Ltd · No. 1:21-cv-02098
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 4, 2022

Background

An earlier order dated May 13, 2022, granted Plaintiff a default judgment against all Defendants. The court then referred Plaintiff’s request for damages to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for a post-default-judgment inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount owed after the judgment.

On August 24, 2022, Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation. It recommended that Plaintiff receive $253,079.43 in damages, $97,136.00 in attorneys’ fees, $437.44 in costs, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate calculated from the date the damages judgment was entered. Plaintiff’s counsel filed proof that Defendants were served with the Report on August 26, 2022. No objections were timely filed.

Court’s Analysis

When no specific objection is made to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court stated that it found no clear error concerning the recommended damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, or post-judgment interest.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court awarded Plaintiff $253,079.43 in damages, $97,136.00 in attorneys’ fees, $437.44 in costs, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, calculated from the date the damages judgment was entered. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.