Schatzki et al v. Weiser Capital Management, LLC et al, No. 1:2010cv04685 - Document 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, judgment will be entered for Plaintiffs against WCM and Michel including prejudgment interest only on Count II (conversion) and costs. Submit judgment on notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/11/2014) (ama)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------ ------x DEBRA SCHATZKI and BPP WEALTH, INC., Plaintiffs, 10 Civ. 4685 OPINION -againstWEISER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, WEISERMAZARS, LLP and HOITSZ (A/K/A "CARIJN MICHEL, IF ) i',";';'::;~:::'·: .:'" ::::,,~=- ! Defendants. i ~,' ;" 'I' :"" " ----x '" . 'I'! I ' intiff LAWLER MAHON & ROONEY LLP 36 West 44th Street, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10036 By: Albert K. Lawler, Esq. Christopher S. Rooney, Esq. James J. Mahon, Defendants STARK & STARK, P.C. 993 Lenox Drive Lawrenceville, NJ 08543 By: Scott I. Unger, Esq. Johnathan A. Scobie, Esq. 1 I "'\ ', , 4,]75'j. t7.,t"'" , ~ . L~'~:.. '~'" ,::~,:-:,::~:: :,:::::6+, :,C!'" 1:-+ !\. j ':, " ' "'.'" Ii A P PEA RAN C E S: 11 .,.". ...... t t!\ !' Sweet, D.J. On ("Schatz "PIa January ") if proposed and ") BPP (the lectively, Judgment via were reasoning agalnst Judgment"). Hoitsz Schatzki the letter on submit (conversion), (ii) interest February judgment Michel Count for 4, will are (trademark I 11P to 2014. in be not ("Michel" ) Michel objected the Proposed Several subsequent response . entered prejudgment Plaintiffs Weiser WeiserMazars, by both parties (i) Defendants "Carijn" "Defendants") t and on Debra (collectively, ("BPP") ("WCM'/) , 11C and below, WCM Inc. "Proposed Management, ("WeiserMazars") letters Wealth, Plaintiffs' submitted a notice of settlement of judgment and a judgment Capital 2014, 31, for interest entitled Given Plaintiffs on to infringement) , the Count II prejudgment (iii) and Plaintiffs will be granted costs. Prior Proceedings From January 15, (conversion conspiracy tried to against against a jury, all and 2014 all to Defendants) Defendants) Count January I of and t (trademark 2 24, 2014, Count instant Count v (civil action infringement II were against WCM) Count VI (unjust enrichment inst WCM and WeiserMazars) were tried to the court. The jury reached its verdict on Counts J.l and V on Count II January 24, (conversion) 2014, finding Plaintifrs on Plaintiffs on Count V (c but against for the 1 conspiracy). The jury awarded damages in the amount of $300,000 for Count II. Judgment was granted for Plaintiffs against WCM on Count I (trademark infringement) in the amount WCM and WeiserMazars dismissing Count VI on January 29, 2014 have Mi interest award of on Count costs to objected prejudgment interest on Count II (iii) (unjust enrichment) in ( i) (conversion); I (trademark favor of the (ii) to the date of the judgment for total amount of $101,520. the award of and for Plaintiffs' total amount of $1,833. and against The Proposed Judgment 2010 aintiffs' conversion claim for It also interest at 3.25% per annum from May 3, judgment of infringement); Plaintiffs 1 and WCM in the Proposed Judgment. award calls for prejudgment interest at 9% per annum from May 3, a and (the "Opinion"). Defendants' prejudgment of $15,000 trademark calls for 2010 to the date of t infringement Plaintiffs have not provi of costs at this time. 3 prejudgment cla for a d their bill Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Prejudgment Interest For Its Judgment on Count II (Conversion) were Plainti claim § for the amount of awarded damages on $300,000 by jury. the their conversion N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5001 mandates that \\ [iJ nterest shall be recovered upon a sum cause awarded of an act or otherwise interfering with title to, of, property imposes an discretion If affirmative not to mandate award law." Gussack Real t N.Y. Co. C.P.L.R. on depr ng or or possession or enjoyment § trial prejudgment v. omission 5001. "Section courts; interest Xerox 224 they under 5001 have New F.3d 85, no York 93 (2d Cir. 2000). P intiffs' conversion claim invo s a sum awarded as a result of an act that interfered with Plaintiffs' title to and possession of there SmartOffice and the data contained The situation here is different from that contemplated in Trademark Resear 326 database (2d Cir. v. Inc. Maxwell Online 1993), where the damages pIa 955 F.2d iff sought from the jury included a computation of interest. Id. at 342. Given such, Plaintif r P Count intiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on its judgment II (conversion) , pre-j udgment and erest 4 judgment on the is entered conversion for claim. See Gala Jewel Inc. WL 684002, (S.D.N.Y. at *2 prejudgment interest v. , Harr Mar. where No. 1, 05 C neither 2007 (granting an awa 2007) 7713(GEL), of counsel nor t court erest should or could suggested to the jury that an aspect of damages) . Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled To Prejudgment Interest For Its Trademark Claim The prejudgment Lanham See an U.S.C. that awa by rece 1117(a) § e de explicitly not damages 15 held has 1117(a), does interest infringement. Circuit Act and victims (c) . is omission prejudgment of provide in interest an of The 15 for Second U.S.C. within is § the discretion of the trial court, but that it "is normally reserved for 'exceptional' Corp., 918 request cases." F.2d 1060, 1064 judgment r Am. Honda Motor (2d Cir.1990) interest). Co. v. Two Wheel (affirming denial Other courts within of this circuit have elected to award prejudgment interest for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. U.S. Sun Star Tradi 2133937, at *14-15 Consumer Cos. 2008). v. Such awa § 1117(c). See Phil Inc., (E.D.N.Y. Aini, 540 No. Mar. F. Morris U__ TnC"':. CV 08-0068 (KAM) (JO), 11, Supp. 2010); 2d 374, Johnson 39 97 2010 WL & Johnson (E.D.N.Y. of interest came as a result of pIa 5 v. iffs' willful See conduct or bad liD Morris, ith "exceptional" 2010 WL 2133937, at *14; circumstances. Johnson & Johnson, 540 F. Supp. 2d at 392-93. d aintiffs willfully or As trademar that justi claim. in not such, in ith bad show when it there are no are not that infringed "exceptional" an award of prej udgment Plaintiffs trial entitled interest to an WCM acted PIa if circumstances on the trademark award of prejudgment interest on Count I. Plaintiffs Will Be Granted Costs Pursuant ral othe statute, se, to Fed. t se v. P. 54(d) (1), "[u]nless or a court r 0 a provides costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to court to re Wilder Civl rules, the prevailing party." Ru a R. GL 54 (d) is permissive and "it permits se to impose costs on Bus Lines, "Prevailing party" judgment is awarded." Buckhannon 258 F.3d losing party at all." 126, 129 (2d r. 2001). s been defined as a "party in whose favor a rendered, Bd. regardless and Care of Home 532 6 the U.S. amount Inc. 598, v. of damages West Virainia 603 (U.S. 2001) (quoting Black's Law are the "prevailing party" two of their (7th ed. ctionary 1145 four causes the reasons in this action, of action. 1999)). Plaintiffs having prevailed on Costs will be awarded in their favor. Conclusion For entered Plaintiffs r prej udgment interest only set forth against on WCM Count II above, and judgment Michel (conversion) will be including and costs. Submit judgment on notice. It is so ordered. New York, NY February /1 , 2014 U.S.D.J. 7 -------------~---~ - -.. _--._.._...- . _ . _ - - - ..
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
