Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Elohim EPF USA v. 162 D & Y Corp., Elohim asked Judge Castel for more time and permission to seek copyright fees; no ruling appears.
Elohim EPF USA, Inc. and the defendants in the case, because the requested extension would change filing deadlines and the requested permission would allow Elohim to seek attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., Elohim’s lawyer sent Judge P. Kevin Castel a letter dated December 19, 2023. The letter says Elohim’s deadline to file a proposed final judgment was December 29, 2023, following the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Elohim asked for a two-week extension, until January 12, 2024, with the defendants’ response due January 19, 2024. It also asked for permission to file a motion seeking attorney’s fees and costs under the Copyright Act. Alternatively, if the court would not allow that motion, Elohim asked for time to seek reconsideration or relief from the findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
The letter asserted that Elohim had not given up its request for fees and costs and that the defendants would not be harmed by a fee motion. Judge P. Kevin Castel’s ruling is not included in the provided text, so the court’s action on these requests cannot be determined.
The detailed version
- Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02431
- P. Castel
- Dec. 19, 2023
Document and context
The provided text is a letter from Elohim EPF USA, Inc.’s counsel to Judge P. Kevin Castel. It refers to the court’s earlier Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, identified as ECF 369, and to a pending deadline for filing a proposed final judgment. The text does not include a judicial opinion or an order ruling on the requests described in the letter.
Requests by Elohim
Elohim requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing its proposed final judgment, from December 29, 2023, to January 12, 2024. It proposed a January 19, 2024 response deadline for the defendants.
Elohim also requested permission to file a motion for prevailing-party attorney’s fees and costs under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505. The letter argued that Elohim had not knowingly waived or abandoned its right to seek those fees and costs. It asserted that Elohim had repeatedly requested fees and costs during the case and referred to an earlier order granting default judgments as to liability against certain defendants while deferring a ruling on damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
The letter further argued that the defendants would not be prejudiced by a fee motion and that the defendants’ alleged delays and litigation conduct supported a fee award. These statements are Elohim’s positions in the letter, not findings made in the provided text.
Alternative request and disposition
Elohim alternatively asked for enough additional time to file a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 concerning paragraph 67 of the findings and conclusions. The provided text does not state that Judge Castel granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on any of these requests. Accordingly, no disposition can be reported from the supplied material.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.