UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SUSAN GHAHREMANI,

Plaintiff,

-against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Case No. 24-CV-04356-FB-LKE CRAFT FOR KIDS IMPORTS, INC.,

Defendant. Appearances: For the Plaintiff: ANDREW GERBER Kushnirsky Gerber PLLC 27 Union Square West, Suite 301 New York, New York 10003

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Susan Ghahremani (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Craft For Kids Imports, Inc. (“CFK” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff asserts that CFK, a wholesaler of arts and crafts, sold Plaintiff’s copyrighted designs without consent. More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant committed copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act,

, et seq.; distribution of goods with missing and altered copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”),

(b); and distribution of goods with false copyright management information in violation of the DMCA,

(a). The summons and complaint were served on CFK on June 24, 2024, with the response due by July 15, 2024. When Defendant failed to respond within the required

time, Plaintiff requested a certificate of default, which the Clerk of Court issued on July 18, 2024. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant.

On February 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion. She reasoned that Defendant should be liable for copyright infringement, distributing copyrighted works with false copyright management information, and

distributing copyrighted works with copyright management information removed. In addition to (1) granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi recommended that the District Court “(2) award $135,000 in statutory

damages from Defendant; (3) issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from further infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works; and (4) award Plaintiff’s counsel their attorney’s fees of $8,055 and costs of $519.30.” R&R at 25. The R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, i.e., until February

19, 2024, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation.”

. No objections have been

filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Smith v. Campbell,

(2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citations omitted)). The Court

will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility,

(2d Cir. 2000). No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. The only change

to be made is regarding the forum rule for ascertaining the hourly rate for attorney’s fees. Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi wrote, “[P]revailing rates for experienced attorneys . . . range from approximately $300 to $400 per hour. Zuffa, LLC v. South

Beach Saloon, Inc., No. 15-CV-6355 (ADS) (AKT),

, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019).” However, the range is higher for partners, whose hourly rate can fall approximately between $300 to $450.

at *6 (quoting Safeco Insurance Company of America v. M.E.S., Inc., No. 09-CV-3312 (PKC) (VMS),

, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018)).” R&R at 23. But these rates have been superseded by the new forum rule rates announced in Rubin v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, ––– F. Supp. 4th ––––, ––––,

, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21,

2025); Moore v. Rubin, No. 17-CV-6404 (BMC),

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2025) (“After an extensive and well-documented discussion of the impact of inflation on the cost of living, [Judge Block] found that the reasonable hourly

rates in this district are now $450 to $650 for partners, $300 to $450 for senior associates, $150 to $300 for junior associates, and $100 to $150 for paralegals”). But the change in the forum rule does not alter the rest of Magistrate Judge

Eshkenazi’s well-reasoned calculation of the hourly rate. She found the partner’s hourly rate of $500, the third-year associate’s hourly rate of $320, and the first-year associate’s hourly rate of $220 to be reasonable. R&R at 24. These rates are comfortably within the updated forum rule range.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the rest of the R&R without de novo review. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York March 11, 2025