Sirius XM Radio Inc. v. Aura Multimedia Corporation

Background

Sirius XM Radio Inc. sued Aura Multimedia Corporation, Aura Multimedia Technologies Company LLC, and Clayton B. Burton, Jr. The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted Sirius XM’s motion for default judgment against the two Aura defendants. It deferred deciding damages and other remedies until the case was resolved as to Burton, who represented himself. Sirius XM later settled its claims against Burton, and he was voluntarily dismissed from the case.

Report and recommendation

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended the remedies to be awarded against the Aura defendants. The parties had fourteen days to submit written objections. No objection was filed within that period. Judge Woods therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and accepted and adopted it in full.

Ruling and relief

The court ordered that Sirius XM receive judgment against Aura Multimedia Corporation and Aura Multimedia Technologies Company LLC, jointly and individually, for:

- $259,299.21 in damages, with nine-percent annual prejudgment interest under New York law from July 8, 2020, through the date judgment is entered; - $500,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c); - $50 in statutory damages under New York General Business Law § 349; and - post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

The court also permanently prohibited each Aura defendant from using, without authorization, any of the seven Sirius XM registered marks listed in the order. It separately permanently prohibited each Aura defendant from representing that it was affiliated in any way with Sirius XM Radio Inc.

The order directed Sirius XM’s counsel to serve it on the defendants and file proof of service. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against the two Aura defendants in the amount stated as $259,299.21, plus $500,050.00, with applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and to close the case. The order’s classification is procedural because it entered default judgment rather than resolving the underlying claims through an adversarial merits determination.