Verch v. Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York

Verch v. Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X MARCO VERCH,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 19-CV-5923 (RPK) (RML) -against-

SEA BREEZE SYRUPS, INC.,

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------X RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Marco Verch brings this copyright infringement action against defendant Sea Breeze Syrups, Inc. See Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff is a professional photographer who licenses his photographs to online and print media for a fee. See id. ¶ 5. The complaint alleges that defendant reproduced and displayed one of plaintiff’s licensed photographs on defendant’s website without authorization, in violation of the Copyright Act,

17 U.S.C. § 501

. See

id. ¶¶ 7-16

. After defendant failed to respond to the complaint, plaintiff moved for default judgment. See Mot. for Default J. (Dkt. #9). On August 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Levy issued a report and recommendation (“R. & R.”) recommending that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted. See generally R. & R. (Dkt. #15). Judge Levy further recommends that plaintiff be awarded $1,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act,

17 U.S.C. § 504

, as well as $1,575 in attorney’s fees and $440 in costs, for a total of $3,015. See

id. at 13

. No party objected to the R. & R. within 14 days of service, the time required by

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). As a general matter, when no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court reviews the recommendation for “clear error.” Alvarez Sosa v. Barr,

369 F. Supp. 3d 492, 497

(E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citation omitted); see Nelson v. Smith,

618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189

(S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition). Clear error will only be found when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is “left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,

662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339-40

(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Snow,

462 F.3d 55, 72

(2d Cir. 2006)). I have reviewed Judge Levy’s R. & R. and, having found no clear error, adopt it in full. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted and plaintiff is awarded $3,015. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Rachel Kovner RACHEL P. KOVNER United States District Judge

Dated: December 17, 2020 Brooklyn, New York

Reference

Status
Unknown