Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2023

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Valerio

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:19-cv-03653
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

J&J Sports Productions v. Valerio: Judge Ramos granted fees and costs with modifications, awarding fees and some costs while denying investigative costs without prejudice.

Who this affects

J&J Sports Productions, Inc. received $1,600 in attorneys’ fees, $163 in service-of-process costs, and $400 in filing fees. Rosaura Valerio and J J Sport Bar Restaurant Corp. were not awarded the requested $560 in investigative costs, which the court denied without prejudice.

What happened

In J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Valerio, J&J Sports Productions sued Rosaura Valerio and J J Sport Bar Restaurant Corp. under federal communications laws, alleging that they showed a boxing match without authorization. The court had already entered a $26,400 default judgment after the defendants did not respond.

J&J Sports Productions then requested $1,600 in attorneys’ fees and $1,123 in costs. The requested fees covered work by attorney Joseph P. Loughlin and a paralegal. The requested costs included investigation, service of process, and filing the complaint.

Judge Ramos granted the motion with modifications. He awarded the full $1,600 in attorneys’ fees, $163 for service of process, and $400 in filing fees. He denied the request for investigative costs because the supporting invoice did not provide enough detail, but the denial was without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Valerio · No. 1:19-cv-03653
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Aug. 25, 2023

Background

J&J Sports Productions, Inc. brought the action under Sections 553 and 605 of federal communications laws. It alleged that, on May 7, 2016, Rosaura Valerio, individually and doing business as J J Sports Bar, and J J Sport Bar Restaurant Corp., doing business as J J Sports Bar, exhibited a boxing match at their restaurant in violation of J&J Sports Productions’ exclusive license.

The Clerk entered defaults against both defendants on June 6, 2019. After the defendants did not respond to an order directing them to explain why a default judgment should not be entered, the court entered a default judgment on August 29, 2022, awarding J&J Sports Productions $26,400 and allowing it to seek attorneys’ fees and costs.

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

J&J Sports Productions sought $1,600 in attorneys’ fees and $1,123 in costs. The requested fees represented 2.5 hours of work by attorney Joseph P. Loughlin at $350 per hour and 7.25 hours of paralegal work at $100 per hour.

The court found both hourly rates reasonable based on awards in similar cases. Although the billing records were reconstructed from the case files rather than recorded contemporaneously, the court found them sufficiently detailed to evaluate the requested hours. It also found that the hours were reasonably spent on the litigation.

J&J Sports Productions sought costs for an investigator, service of process, and filing the complaint. The court awarded $163 for service of process and $400 in filing fees. It found that a prevailing party was entitled to those costs.

The request for $560 in investigative costs was supported by a redacted invoice. The invoice did not explain the investigator’s work, the time spent, or the investigator’s qualifications. The court therefore could not determine whether the charge was reasonable. The court did not decide whether investigative costs may be recovered under the relevant statute; instead, it denied that request for insufficient documentation, without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted J&J Sports Productions’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, subject to the stated modifications. It awarded $1,600 in attorneys’ fees, $163 for service of process, and $400 in filing fees, while denying the request for investigative costs without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.