Sands v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Plaintiff: Steve Sands
Defendant: Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Case Number: 1:2017cv09215
Filed: November 22, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Lewis A. Kaplan
Nature of Suit: Copyrights
Cause of Action: 17 U.S.C. ยง 101
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 28, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER denying 86 LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 84 Judgment on Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs attorneys, Richard Liebowitz and Liebowitz Law Firm PLLC seek a stay of enforcement pending appeal of a $28,567.50 money judgment against them without a ny security. Of course, a stay pending appeal is available to them as of right upon the posting of a supersedeas bond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). Apparently, they are unable or unwilling to obtain such a bond, which reportedly would cost something in t he neighborhood of 1 to 5 percent of the principal amount of the bond (here roughly $285 to $1,425) and collateral. See, e.g., Brunswick Companies, How to Get an Appeal/Supersedeas Bond(available at https://www.brunswickcompanies.com/s urety-bonds/how-to-get-an-appeal-supersedeas-bond/); Jurisco,Supersedeas/Appeal Bond (available at https: //jurisco.corn/what-is-surety-bond-definition/defendants-bonds/supersedeas-bond-appeal-bond-2/) (both last visited Feb. 28, 2020). Inability, i f Mr. Liebowitz is to be believed, is not the problem. His letter application protests that his firm is in "solid financial condition and can readily afford to satisfy the judgment." Dkt. 86. But Mr. Leibowitz has provided no affidavit or declaration, much less any hard financial information. So I have no reliable way to determine whether his representation is true. 1 Moreover, I have no basis for reaching any reliable conclusion as to whether collection if the judgment is affirme d will be simplicitly itself or a troublesome and difficult search for assets. I note also that the application was not properly made, as it is one that should havehttps ://jurisco.com/what-is-surety-bond-definition/ defendants-bonds/ supersedeas-bond-appeal-bond-2/ been made by proper motion rather than by letter. S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules and Instructions §13.1. Accordingly, the motion is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/28/2020) (jca)
February 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 84 JUDGMENT: For the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion entered on September 18, 2019 (ECF No, 56), the Memorandum Opinion entered on October 22, 2019 (ECF No. 67), the Memorandum and Order entered on November 26, 2019 (ECF No, 78 ), and the Memorandum and Order entered on December 17, 2019 (ECF No. 81), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: 1. The action is dismissed with prejudice; and 2. Richard Liebowitz, counsel for Plaintiff, shall pay defense counsel, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP, the amount of $28,567.50 in attorney's fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/7/2020) (jca)
December 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On September 18, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Richard Liebowitz, counsel for plaintiff, to pay defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees for making and litigating its motion for sanctions [DI-56]. Defense counsel submi tted its timesheets along with several declarations in support of its fee petition [DI-65, 80]. These documents asserted that defense counsel billed 116.8 hours at a blended rate of $326.11 per hour - a total of $38,090 - in connection wi th the sanctions motion. Plaintiff argues that defense counsel's hours are excessive and that Mr. Liebowitz should be required to pay no more than $5,625, or 15 hours at $375 per hour [DI-79].1 The Court has carefully considered the p arties' submissions, in particular defense counsel's timesheets. It finds that defense counsel's hours are unreasonably high relative to the amount of work one would be expected to perform in prosecuting the sanctions motion. The Co urt finds it proper to reduce defense counsel's hours by 25%, from 116.8 to 87.6. At the rate of $326.11 per hour, this comes to $28,567.50. Mr. Liebowitz is ordered to pay this amount to defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 12/17/2019) (jca)
November 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 78 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 68 Motion for Recusal; granting in part 76 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's recusal motion (Dkt. 68) is denied in all respects. The action is dismissed with pre judice for plaintiffs failure to post security as required by the October 22, 2019 order. Plaintiff's motion for permission to file a fu1iher memorandum concerning the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded (Dkt. 77) is granted to the extent that he may file such a memorandum provided it is filed on or before December 6, 2019 and does not exceed 10 double spaced pages. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/26/2019) (jca)
October 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OPINION: This action shall be dismissed with prejudice unless Sands, on or before October 29, 2019, posts of a bond or other sufficient security in the amount of $50,000 for costs and attorney's fees in this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/22/2019) (mml) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
September 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 56 MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss the action as a sanction for alleged discovery misconduct or, alternatively, to strike portions of the evidence that plaintiff has submitted in support of a motion fo r summary judgment or require a bond as security for costs and fees pursuant to Local Civ. R. 54.2 [DI 38], is granted to the extent that plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Liebowitz, shall pay defendant's reasonable attorney's fees, for makin g and litigating this motion, and plaintiff shall show cause, on or before October 2, 2019, why the Court should not condition plaintiffs ability to proceed with this action on the posting of a bond or other sufficient security in the amount of &# 036;50,000 for costs and attorney's fees in this action, and otherwise denied. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [DI 25] is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/18/2019) (jca) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sands v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steve Sands
Represented By: Richard Liebowitz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Represented By: Terence Patrick Keegan
Represented By: David S. Korzenik
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?