U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.

U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff:	U.S. D.I.D. Corp.
Defendant:	Windstream Communications, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2012cv04023
Filed:	May 21, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	47 U.S.C. § 151 Communications Act of 1934
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
January 7, 2013	Filing 53 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court's July 13, 2012 Opinion is vacated to the extent it held that an enjoined party may recover on an injunction bond in the absence of a final adjudication on the merits. For the reasons state d in this Opinion, the Court awards Windstream $227,271.92 for damages caused by the TRO. By letter application, U.S. D.I.D. requested that any release of funds to Windstream be delayed fourteen days to give it the opportunity to file a motion to alter or amend or to seek a stay pending appeal. (Docket No. 40). Given that the Second Circuit has not addressed the issue discussed in this Opinion and that the Opinion will function as a final judgment that U.S. D.I.D. is liable on the injuncti on bond (absent future proceedings between the parties), the Court will and hereby does grant Plaintiffs request and stays any release of funds for fourteen days. Accordingly, on January 22, 2013, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check payable to Windstream Communications, Inc., in the amount of $227,271.92, which is to be drawn from the $314,672.80 deposited by U.S. D.I.D. in the Court's registry, and shall mail that check to Windstream's counsel, Brian J. Butler, Esq., at Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, One Lincoln Center, Syracuse, NY 13202. On that same date, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check payable to U.S. D.I.D. Corporation for the remaining $87,400.88 deposited by U.S. D.I.D. in the Court's registry, and shall mail that check to Dean Vlahos, President of U.S. D.I.D., at 640 Federal Road, Brookfield, CT 06804. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/7/13) (pl)
July 13, 2012	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For these reasons, the Court is prepared to award Defendant recovery against the posted security. Nevertheless, Defendant is only entitled to those damages it suffered as a proximate result of the TRO. The invoice that Defendant submitted to the Court includes charges for services provided from May 15, 2012, to June 14, 2012. As the TRO was issued on the evening of May 21, 2012, to prevent a Defendant from terminating services at 11:59 that night, (Compl. 9), and the TRO was vacated on June 21, 2012, the invoice includes seven days of services that occurred prior to the issuance of the TRO, and does not include seven days of services provided pursuant to the TRO that will not be billed until the July 15, 2012 invoice. (Reed Decl. II at 4). Furthermore, Defendants request for recovery of $244,888.79 includes $57,336.40 in prior unpaid charges that are plainly not attributable to services provided as a result of the TRO. Accordingly, on or befor e July 23, 2012, Defendant shall submit to the Court more accurate evidence of the costs and damages it sustained as a proximate result of being wrongfully enjoined. Defendant's submission shall be limited to the costs of services from May 22, 2 012 (the first day on which Defendant was required by the TRO to continue providing services to Plaintiff), through June 21, 2012 (the day on which the Court vacated the TRO), and shall not include any prior unpaid balances that are unrelated to the TRO. By the same date, Defendant must submit to the Court, by e-mail to the Orders and Judgments Clerk in.pdf format and by e-mail to the Court in Microsoft Word format, a new proposed order consistent with this decision and the evidence of costs from May 22, 2012, to June 21, 2012. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/13/2012) (lmb)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 7, 2013

Filing 53 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court's July 13, 2012 Opinion is vacated to the extent it held that an enjoined party may recover on an injunction bond in the absence of a final adjudication on the merits. For the reasons state d in this Opinion, the Court awards Windstream $227,271.92 for damages caused by the TRO. By letter application, U.S. D.I.D. requested that any release of funds to Windstream be delayed fourteen days to give it the opportunity to file a motion to alter or amend or to seek a stay pending appeal. (Docket No. 40). Given that the Second Circuit has not addressed the issue discussed in this Opinion and that the Opinion will function as a final judgment that U.S. D.I.D. is liable on the injuncti on bond (absent future proceedings between the parties), the Court will and hereby does grant Plaintiffs request and stays any release of funds for fourteen days. Accordingly, on January 22, 2013, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check payable to Windstream Communications, Inc., in the amount of $227,271.92, which is to be drawn from the $314,672.80 deposited by U.S. D.I.D. in the Court's registry, and shall mail that check to Windstream's counsel, Brian J. Butler, Esq., at Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, One Lincoln Center, Syracuse, NY 13202. On that same date, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check payable to U.S. D.I.D. Corporation for the remaining $87,400.88 deposited by U.S. D.I.D. in the Court's registry, and shall mail that check to Dean Vlahos, President of U.S. D.I.D., at 640 Federal Road, Brookfield, CT 06804. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/7/13) (pl)

July 13, 2012

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For these reasons, the Court is prepared to award Defendant recovery against the posted security. Nevertheless, Defendant is only entitled to those damages it suffered as a proximate result of the TRO. The invoice that Defendant submitted to the Court includes charges for services provided from May 15, 2012, to June 14, 2012. As the TRO was issued on the evening of May 21, 2012, to prevent a Defendant from terminating services at 11:59 that night, (Compl. 9), and the TRO was vacated on June 21, 2012, the invoice includes seven days of services that occurred prior to the issuance of the TRO, and does not include seven days of services provided pursuant to the TRO that will not be billed until the July 15, 2012 invoice. (Reed Decl. II at 4). Furthermore, Defendants request for recovery of $244,888.79 includes $57,336.40 in prior unpaid charges that are plainly not attributable to services provided as a result of the TRO. Accordingly, on or befor e July 23, 2012, Defendant shall submit to the Court more accurate evidence of the costs and damages it sustained as a proximate result of being wrongfully enjoined. Defendant's submission shall be limited to the costs of services from May 22, 2 012 (the first day on which Defendant was required by the TRO to continue providing services to Plaintiff), through June 21, 2012 (the day on which the Court vacated the TRO), and shall not include any prior unpaid balances that are unrelated to the TRO. By the same date, Defendant must submit to the Court, by e-mail to the Orders and Judgments Clerk in.pdf format and by e-mail to the Court in Microsoft Word format, a new proposed order consistent with this decision and the evidence of costs from May 22, 2012, to June 21, 2012. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/13/2012) (lmb)

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: U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: U.S. D.I.D. Corp.
Represented By:	Katherine Plominski-Gloede
Represented By:	Sanford Philip Rosen
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: Windstream Communications, Inc.
Represented By:	Brian J. Butler
Represented By:	Adam P. Mastroleo
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?