Opinion
15-CV-4244 (JGK) (OTW)
04-10-2024
GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., Plaintiff, v. YOUNG EQUIPMENT SALES, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONORABLE JOHN G. KOELTL
ONA T. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. DISCUSSION
This action is before me for a Report & Recommendation on the availability of prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and costs. Because the parties submitted opposing final judgments (ECF Nos. 1066, 1067-69), I ordered the parties to draft a single proposed final judgment. (ECF 1082). This, too, was unsuccessful. At the status conference on December 20, 2023, I ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether an award of prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and costs is mandatory. (ECF 1085). The parties submitted letters accordingly. (ECF Nos. 1088, 1091).
Defendants did not provide the Court with any authority that holds that prejudgment interest on fees and costs is mandatory despite their assertion to the contrary. See, e.g., LinkCo, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 232 F.Supp.2d 182, 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[P]re-judgment interest is mandatory for a damage award, except when the action is equitable in nature.”) (emphasis added); United Realty, LP v. Verschleiser, 2022 WL 17250107, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2022) (awarding prejudgment interest on damages) (emphasis added); 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co., 933 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[T]he District Court may, in its discretion, award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest if it determines that the case is ‘exceptional' under the Octane Fitness standard.”) (emphasis added) (citing Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014)). In the absence of any controlling authority that an award of prejudgment interests on fees and costs is mandatory, the issue remains within the discretion of this Court. See Carco Grp, Inc. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d 72, 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding that the possibility that prejudment interest on attorneys' fees may be mandatory); 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC, 933 F.3d at 216.
Exercising this discretion, and based upon my years of experience with counsel in this litigation, I find that the lawyers in this case, in particular counsel for the Guardian Defendants (see, e.g., ECF 1025), have litigated so unreasonably after “winning” the substantive case years ago, that a further award of prejudgment interest on fees is unwarranted.
Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the Defendants' request for prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and/or costs be denied, and the proposed judgment at ECF 1091-4 be entered.
II. OBJECTIONS
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from receipt of this Report to file written objections. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 6. A party may respond to any objections within fourteen (14) days after being served. Such objections, and any responses to objections, shall be addressed to the Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Koeltl.
FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983).