Frye v. Lagerstrom et al, No. 1:2015cv05348 - Document 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part 220 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part 220 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting in part 220 Motion to Seize; granting in part 220 Motion for Judgment.For the following reasons, plain tiff's requests for a permanent injunction, impoundment, statutory damages, attorney's fees, and damages for breach of contract are granted in part. Lagerstrom is permanently enjoined from infringing Frye's copyright in "Homeless. " Lagerstrom is ordered to forthwith destroy all copies of all "Homeless" footage in his possession or control. The Court awards $10,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), $1,921.9 8 in damages for breach of contract, and $21,450 in attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 220, enter judgment in favor of plaintiff, and close this case. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 6/27/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tro) Modified on 6/28/2018 (tro).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Frye v. Lagerstrom et al Doc. 226 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x JOSEPH FRYE, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - against - 15 Civ. 5348 BENJAMIN F. LAGERSTROM, a.k.a BENJAMIN IRISH, and DIANACOLLV, (NRB) INC., Defendants. ----------------------------------------x NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On August 31, 2017, this Court granted plaintiff Joseph Frye's motion for summary judgment on his copyright infringement and breach of contract claims Lagerstrom and Dianacollv, ECF No. 214. equitable 220. fees, and monetary For permanent Before the injunction, Inc. the Mem. Court relief. following against & is Mot., reasons, impoundment, defendants Order, Aug. plaintiff's Dec. 18, plaintiff's BenJamin 31, 2017, motion for 2017, ECF No. requests for statutory damages, a attorney's and damages for breach of contract are granted in part. I . BACKGROUND A. Facts The previous facts of opinions. Lagerstrom, No. 15 this See Civ. case Mem. 5348 are & described Order, (NRB), ECF 2016 WL in detail in our No. 214; Frye v. 3023324 (S.D.N.Y. Dockets.Justia.com May 24, facts 2016). with the the case and only provide the background relevant of We assume for deciding the present motion. the reader's familiarity 1 In 2014, plaintiff Frye and defendant Lagerstrom reached an agreement to produce a short film entitled "Homeless: Story," which was based on a script written by Frye. <JI<JI 3, 6-10. On September 12, 2014, Agreement" under which A Love Frye Aff. the parties executed a "Crew Dianacollv and its "personal representatives" would provide video production services in the form of equipment, cast, ("Crew Agreement"). Frye Aff. <JI 11; Compl. Ex. B In exchange, plaintiff would provide, alia, meals, crew, and provide a 60 days. a and crew. makeup artist, and participation credit inter to the DVD of the completed motion picture within Crew Agreement at The production work was 1. to be done "on speculation," meaning that defendants would not be paid but were working "under the idea that future paid work wi 11 result from the help in promotion of the project that comes with sample/demonstration Id. footage material property of the otherwise known as a The Crew Agreement further provided that "all 'pilot[.]'" and production, being Producer" part of and that distribute or display such footage this agreement Dianacollv is the "will not in any way other than as an These facts are adopted froCT pla1nt1ff's unrebutted Rule 56.1 Statement (ECF No. 174) and aff1dav1t (ECF No. 175). 2 example/demonstration of the company's work." Id. Frye signed the agreement as the "Producer," and Lagerstrom signed it as the "Crew Chief." to give Id. at 2. Lagerstrom During negotiations, credits as "Director "Executive Producer" of the film. At the time, Associate Frye also agreed of Frye Aff. Photography" and 10. <JI Frye was employed by Showt ime Networks as an Producer of Ir..teractive Television. Id. <JI 5. Frye informed Showtime about the production of "Homeless" to fulfill a right-of-first-refusal obligation that was a condition of his employment. Id. 13. <JI Principal shooting of "Homeless" occurred in late September 2014. Id. footage <JI 14. In October of 2014, to produce a 12-15 minute as short Frye was editing the film, the relationship between Frye and Lagerstrom deteriorated after the two disagreed Id. about how best to promote the completed film. On October 12, "Jerry Seinfeld," 2014, defendant Lagerstrom, published a video Showtime Networks" on YouTube. minute video was shoot, "Homeless" composed Id. q[ entitled including of under the alias "Pilot footage "important an 16-22. for from the of the scene" completed film that Lagerstrom had edited differently. this video, Plaintiff it. Id. Lagerstrom discovered q[q[ 25-26. labeled the video himself and Lagerstrom 3 LL/TT The approximately six 24. entirely q[<Jl as insisted refused, Id. Id. "Director." Lagerstrom responding In remove with an "Order" to Frye, as Showtime staff. Frye that "address it .:::d. was registration and Frye Aff. for for April videos also 56.1 Pl.' s is Plaintiff q[q[ 34, 35, text and on of because it Frye Aff. applied "Homeless" mai l ings needed to 28. q[ for copyright certificates (effective (effective to Showtime informed receiving picture June Vimeo Stmt. counsel, 56.1 client plaintiff the motion additional Pl.'s G. project "Homeless," the Ex. an d of December January 20, 26, 2015). 33; Compl. Ex. A. q[ Between through his ema i· l s harassment" first. 2014, for registration see Compl. declining December · mu lt ip l e as 27; q[ [Lagerstrom's] In 2014) well Stmt. going to and defendant YouTube. On defendant 32. q[ 2015, 29-36. q[q[ sent of a Defendant jail June 22, cease Aff. 2015, and give me a four 35; q[ see plaintiff, desist letter. responded by writing: break." q[ 33. id. sorr'ce of which Lagerstrom opposed, id. Id. "Your to YouTube and Vemeo, submitted copyright notices 38, Frye published q[ 37. B. Procedural History Frye filed the instant lawsuit on July 10, 2015, copyright we granted Frye's mot ion for On August infringement and breach of contract claims. 31, 2 O17, claims how to relief. and instructed move forward Mem. & Frye on Order, to the file issue Aug. 31, 4 a of alleging summary judgment on both letter with a monetary 2017, ECF proposa 1 on and/or No. equitable 214. Frye subsequently filed impoundment, statutory claim, attorney's claim. Mot., a motion requesting damages a permanent his copyright and damages fees, for for his injunction, infringement breach of contract 18, 2017, ECF No 220. Dec. II. DISCUSSION A. Permanent Injunction First, 502 that Frye seeks a would prevent permanent 17 U.S.C. injunction under Lagerstrom from using any footage § from and claiming ownership over "Homeless," and would require him to "update [ e) all of his websites with the recent decisions." Given our breach Court of as [we) of a must copyright may "grant of defendant's claim, 17 temporary and final A satisfy a four-factor monetary damages, that, (2) are that and (4) the the defendant, public a "(1) that test: on restrain a it has to compensate remedy interest in would 5 of for hardships equity not be is that such the terms infringement permanent remedies available at balance plaintiff's prov ides injunctions seeking inadequate considering plaintiff that plaintiff 222. 502 § may deem reasonable to prevent or copyright." of the Court's liability for U.S. C. irreparable injury; ( 3) of Law at 7, ECF No. Mem. finding findings 1nJunction suffered an law, such as that inJury; between the warranted; and disserved by a permanent 388, 391 injunction." inJunction copyright relief.'" 569, New York (quoting necessarily "goals by L.L.C., Times (1994)). of follow v. Co. v. a copyright automatically Campbell 547 U.S. law granting Tasini, Acuff-Rose finding 533 are 'not injunctive U.S. 483, Inc., Music, of 505 510 U.S. "[T]he critical question for a district in deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction . is whether there be repeated." 504 not the served 578 n.10 court does infringement: best (2001) MercExchange, (2006). An always eBay v. reasonable likelihood that the wrong will TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, (2d Cir. 2014) 458 F.2d 1082, found that is a (quoting 1100 SEC (2d Cir. 1972)). '[h]arm can be law lacking, Manor Ctrs., Inc., and adequate remedies at the defendant is likely to continue 1nfr1ng1ng the copyright.'" HarperCollins 3d 380 Ent e rs . , LLC v. an Open Road Integrated Media, (S.D.N.Y. I nc . , absent Nursing "Courts have consistently irreparable, , 758 F.3d 493, injunction, Publishers where v. Inc., No . 2014) (quoti~g 1 3 Ci v . Broad. 22 55 LLP, Music, ( KMW ) , 58 Inc. F. Supp. v. PAMDH 2 01 4 W 27 8 18 4 6 , L at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2014) and collecting cases). The here. four First, eBay factors because lost all support sales in granting the an copyright injunction context are "difficult if not impossible to measure," courts frequently find that infringement inflicts irreparable 6 harm. Barcroft Media, Ltd. v. Coed Media 5032993, Inc. at v. Prana 2016)) . LLC, No. (S.D.N.Y. *8 Grp., Nov. 2, Hosp., Second, Inc., 158 Lagerstrom 16 Civ. 2017) (JMF), (quoting Supp. F. 7634 3d continued 2017 Broad. 184, 195 infr:nging WL Music, (S.D.N.Y. plaintiff's copyright even after Frye put him on notice of his infringement. See Pl.'s 56.1 Lagerstrom unless may may Rovio Entm't, 547 in Third, Ltd. to Inc., 691 Supp. 3d v. an offer F. 3d at so 275, the cannot infringing 287 (2d Court, and Inc., of money 97 F. Supp. 3d 2012); finally, about 3d 536, at the Inc. HarperCollins, issuing an See 386. " [i lt hardships, WPIX, damages harm. Supp. complain that activities future F. product." Cir. and for 58 balance suggests infringing account HarperCollins, the behavior in Allstar Vending, Fourth, 386. by to infringer its This engage inadequate 2015); that to doing considering axiomatic ability from be (S.D.N.Y. 32-38. continue enJoined therefore 'll'll Stmt. is loss v. of ivi, 58 F. injunction would be consistent with the public interest because "the public has a compelling in interest protecting ff marketable rights to their work Based that on our Lagerstrom anal ys1s is of these permanently 7 copyright WPIX, factors, enJoined owners' 691 F.3d at 287. the from Court orders infringing on Frye's copyrights in "Homeless," including by claiming ownership of "Homeless."2 B. Impoundment Frye Homeless tapes, next seeks and control." seizure business footage, the records, related Mem. materials of Law, ECF in and impoundment copies of works, Lagerstrom's No. 222 at 8. of "all masters, possession Frye seeks or this relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503, which provides: a the court may order the destruction final or judgment or decree, other fou:-id reasonable to owner's have been made exclusive masters, disposition tapes, or rights, film of used and in of negatives, all violation all or copies plates, other "As part of or of phonorecords the molds, articles 503 (b). for granting Outfitters, *10 The inJunctive No. (S.D.N.Y. Empire Film standard 12 Civ. May 30, Grp. for relief." 6501 2014) Inc., impoundment 826 "mirrors 17 the MPD Accessories B.V. (LTS) ( KN F) , 2014 WL Supp. 2d 61 9, 633 of u.s.c. standard v. Urban 244068 3, (quoting Hounddog Prods., F. matrices, by means which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced." § copyright L.L.C. at v. (S.D.N.Y. 2011)) . 2 As noted above, Frye add1tional:y requests that the Court order Lagerstom to update his websites with the findings of the Court's latest dec1s1ons. Because an inJunction "should be narrowly tailored to fit specific lega: violations," Waldman Publ'g__Co. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 77":,, 78":, (2d Cir. 1994), we decline to requ1re that Lagerstrom describe the Court's rulings on h:s websites. 8 On October destroy all copies by December 1, 219. The 13, 2017. has withholds all of all that in 5, 13, Oct. 2017, ECF No. To the destroyed this copies of all on "Homeless" the extent footage, Lagerstrom would possession issue. so, be his agreerrcent do to he in this to proposed footage at appear already consent destroy "Homeless" therefore not his Lagerstrom Letter Mot. resolution Lagerstrom forthwith of parties appropriate 2017, is that or now ordered footage in to his possession or control. C. Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement Frye he next argues requests a is $19,734.18 award fair because $3,289.03 budget (specifically, produce, and direct, edit in statutory it damages, equals which "Homeless"'s the amount plaintiff invested to "Homeless") multiplied by six known acts of infringement. The Copyright recover, instead Act of actual 17 statutory damages." may be awarded copyright owner willfully," $150,000. defendant's either in that the 17 allows U.S.C. range proves that U.S.C. may §§ infringement the a damages the Court for § of the successful and defendant increase willful, had 9 to an $30,000, the "to award of Statutory damages infringement 504(c) (1)-(2) was profits, 504(c) (2) $750 plaintiff award To the "knowledge but was the "committed of damages establish plaintiff that if that must its to the show actions constitute Publ'g an Co., infringement," 807 F.2d 1110, Fitzgerald 1115 (2d Cir. defendant's actiohs were the result of or 'willful Island blindness' Software F.3d257, 263 to, Comput. & (2dCir. the Publ'g 1986), Inc. v. Prods., 127 Inc., (2d Baylor "that holder's the for, rights," Corp., 413 2005). of statutory damages." 120, or Microsoft in setting the amount The Court has "wide discretion F. 3d v. 'reckless disregard' copyright Serv., Co. John Wiley & Sons, Psihoyos v. Cir. (quoting 603 F.3d 135, 504 (c) (1) (statutory damages the court considers 143 just"); Bryant (2d Cir. 2014) 2010)); v. Inc., Media Right see 17 U.S.C. should be awarded in an amount 17 U.S.C. 504(c) (2) § 748 § "as ("[T)he court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more six factors " ( 1) the profits earned, (6) the by the (4) (5) concerning conduct F. 3d at 127 to determining holder; parties; evidence We $150,000."). the consider, and (2d Cir. there ( 2) infringer; (3) the deterrent the the attitude 2014). does not of of of the the the statutory following damages: the expenses saved, the effect infringer's value consider quantum infringer's state of mind; copyright third in than revenue on the lost parties." the infringer and cooperation infringing by and in providing material; and Psihoyos, 748 Although lost revenue is one factor need to be a between statutory damages and actual damages. 10 direct Id. correlation As we summary observed judgment, in our August Lagerstrom 31, admits 2017 that order he granting created and published videos composed in part of footage from the filming of "Homeless," and the Crew Agreement clearly provides that he was not entitled publish to do so. infringing videos Moreover, after Lagerstrom Frye sent continued to him cease and desist letters and even after the complaint was filed in this case. It follows that Lagerstrom's infringement was willful. While a statutory militate finding of willfulness raises the maximum available damages toward to a $150,000, significantly economic smaller considerations award. Frye here concedes that the total budget of the infringed work was only $3,289.03. Although any exact estimation of profits earned by Lagerstrom and revenue lost by Frye would be speculative on this record, it is evident that these economic factors point towards an award of statutory damages towards the lower end of the statutory range without any evidence that would suggest lost revenue or wronglyobtained profits disproportionate the parties' duplicative, conduct, immaterial, to Lagerstrom's and the film's budget. submission vexatious filings of As to numerous supports an increase in statutory damages, which is mitigated 1n part by his prose status. 11 Considering all determines that relevant an award factors under of $10,000 in § 504 (c), statutory the Court damages is appropriate given the facts and circumstances. D. Attorney's Fees Frye applies for attorney's fees in the amount of $21,450. For the following reasons, we grant this reasonable request. Under 17 U.S.C. 505, § the Court has the discretion to "award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party" in a copyright infringement determining following whether action. to award nonexclusive components of the case) advance n.19 In that should be factor whether of imposition of a v. compensation fee given obJectively reasonable promote purposes the of Inc., 510 "objective fees against litigation and motivation, deterrence." 754 F. 3d 95, substant ia 1 attorneys' award Inc., Fantasy, particular, an award of the and the need in particular circumstances Fogerty (1994)) guided by is in (both in the factual and in the legal considerations (quoting fees discretion "frivolousness, Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., 2014) Court's attorneys' factors: objective unreasonableness to The 108 U.S. (2d Cir. 517, & is a reasonableness weight in determining is warranted" because "the a copyright position the Copyright Act." will holder with generally an not Mat thew Bender Co. v. West Publ'g Co., 240 F.3d 116, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2001). 12 534 & We award Lagerstrom's attorney's positions in fees here this defending because copyright claim were objectively unreasonable. 2017 Memorandum that Lagerstrom had composed in defenses were facts. and part Order of 214 at by summary Judgment, we and publishing footage, and well-settled 7-10. infringement creating infringing precluded ECF No. to of In the Court's August granting admitted several Further, that law 31, found videos Lagerstrom' s or agreed-Jpon significant port ions of Lagerstrom's submissions were devoted to developing a conspiracy theory involving the plaintiff and third manipulation of New York State's criminal we dismissed as a "fanciful notion." parties' alleged justice system, which Id. Lagerstrom's prose status does not change this calculus. Although courts "afford greater leniency" in cases involving pro se litigants, 2014 WL have Perry v. awarded cases 2998542, at pro unreasonable, see F. Universal, 4 292 App'x 78, (S.D.N.Y. Civ. 690 (S.D.N.Y. attorneys' where App'x 291, *7 Estates of Byrd, se fees 79-80 v. Inc., No. Nov. 27, 2007); 2001); 05 Civ. (MBM), positions Attia v. 5627 (GEL), at *2-3 13 17 1555 (ALC), several courts § U.S.C. were Studios, St. Inc., Soc'y of N.Y. in 369 F. Hosp., 12 2007 WL 4190793, Martin's Press, (S.D.N.Y. 505 obJectively Chivalry Film Prods. Polsby v. 2000 WL 98057, 13 Civ. 2014), to Universal 2010); (2d Cir. 3, pursuant parties' Hudson (2d Cir. July No. Jan. 18, v. NBC at *1No. 97 2000). Having determined attorney's fees, an award. that this case merits an award we must next consider the proper amount of such Frye's attorney's fees, initial application requested $21,450 hours expended, or nature of the work done, as is required for an award of fees in this Circuit. Mishkin 2014) Law Office v. Lopalo, 767 F.3d 144, See Marion 148 (2d C:::ir. In response to the Court's request for this information (ECF No. 223), plaintiff's attorney Danny Jiminian provided the Court w1 th records of the dates, services performed for records indicated that rate of $200 per hour. this he tasks, case spent (ECF and hours of the 1 ega 1 224). 148. 9 hours Jiminian' s work nearly three years, No. 1), 48), (ECF No. an a on case at After discounts Id. this Jiminian's on No. plaintiff sought $21,450 in attorney's fees. (ECF in but did not contain any contemporaneous records specifying the date, S. of case, which motion to Id. has been pending for for has included drafting and filing a complaint opposition motion dismiss a totaling $8,330, for to Lagerstrom' s default motion Judgment Lagerstrom' s summary counterclaims (ECF judgment No. to (ECF No. opposition to Lagerstrom's motion for sanctions motion this 54), (ECF No. (ECF 176) , No. and dismiss 143), a 155), the an a motion currently before the Court seeking monetary and equitable relief (ECF No. 222) , correspondence as with well numerous as Lagerstrom and 14 the and letters Court. In other addition, Jiminian was tasked with reviewing and Lagerstrom's frequent lengthy submissions, subJects only ECF No. pages); 203 18 tangentially pages); (133 ECF No. ECF No. ECF No. 225 to 51 (342 pages); 72 pages); (266 relevant case. pages); (65 to which often addressed this ECF No. See, We amount of time Jiminian devoted to these tasks, e.g., ECF No. (50 pages); 130 pages). (95 responding find 55 (49 ECF No. that the as substantiated in contemporaneous records, was reasonable. We also find that Jimin1an's request for a $200 hourly rate is reasonable According to System, for the an attorney records available AttorneySearch, February 2014, Morales v. (JLC), 2017 of the at Jiminian with his New level York of State Unified & was admitted Assocs., WL 2712948, Court iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/ to the New York 17 months before this case was filed. Kavul1ch experience. at P.C., No. (S.D.N.Y. *1 Civ. 16 June 15, Bar in See, e.g., (ALC) 2134 2017) (taking Judicial notice of attorneys' bar admission dates as provided in the records of the New York State Unified Court System and collecting cases doing the same) Courts range of limited in this $200 per District have hour professional to 16 Civ. 3850 reasonable experience, minor role in the litigation. No. be (RA), 2017 found attorneys' even for where fees in the litigators they had with only a See Decastro v. City of New York, WL 15 4386372, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2017) 30, (finding associates Pakter 2010 v. WL at law N.Y.C. rates firms between $150 this District in Dep't of Educ., at 5653397, No. Oct. *3 (S.D.N.Y. between $200 and $275 for a be reasonab 1 e) . 08 to $275 to Civ. 26, for be reasonable); 7673 2010) junior (DAB) (KNF), (finding rates Junior associate in this District to Ciminian's rate of $200 per hour as Frye's lead counsel is therefore reasonable in light of his experience. Lagerstrom argued unreasonable this the because litigation, payments from 225. First, as hours were attorney's fees Schenectady, a matter, per se in 415 03 the an attorney 1 s 1548 this 252 (2d Cir. 1n part to credit find rule fee request the damages, June demands of because not ECF No. Jiminian' s case, conduct. that of were 2018, this own and card 4, that needs was total many of Second, limits available See Kassim v. City of 2005) ("[I]n litigating reacting to forces beyond the particularly the conduct of opposing counsel It is therefore difficult to generalize the appropriate size of the Civ. we proportionality and of the court. No. Letter, by Lagerstrom's F.3d 246, in controversy."); by relation to damages. attorney's control, about given about alleged Jiminian discussed above, brought no Frye's to that disproportionate documented. reasonable which were was Frye well 1s it opposition exceeded sufficiently there in J.S. (GBD) fee Nicol, Inc. (AJP), 2008 16 v. in relation to the amount Peking Handicraft, WL 4613752, at *9 Inc., (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) attorney's is no fee (rejecting request basis in proportionality under 28 U.S.C. the law rule 1n context of Finally, there Lagerstrom's for 505) insistence that § Jiminian's requests for attorney's fees are illegitimate because his client paid him by credit or debit card rather than in cash. The method of payment simply does not factor into this analysis. E. Damages for Breach of Contract Frye requests contract, for arguing meals $1, 921. 98 that he ($176.41), supporting cast 1n reliance damages is entitled make-up a ($1,310.54), and to for recover artist breach of h1 s ($250), safety measures expenses lead ($185.03) and to restore him to the position he was in before entering the Crew Agreement with Lagerstrom. recover 'damages expenditures performance, based made less in any Under New York law, on his reliance preparation loss that the for ~a plaintiff may interest, including performance party or in in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed.'" v. Ogdensburg Bridge (quoting Restatement does not contest & Port Auth., (Second) the St. 13 Lawrence Factory Stores N.Y.3d of Contracts appropriateness of § 204, 208 349). awarding (2009) Lagerstrom reliance damages nor the amount of damages for breach of contract sought by Frye. $1,921.98 We find that an award of damages equal to plaintiff's in expenses is appropriate 17 because it serves to "restore plaintiff to the position in which [he] would have been had R. [he] not Gray, re 1 ied on defendant's alleged promise." Inc. v. LeChase Constr. Servs., Clifford 51 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 857 N.Y.S.2d 347, 349 (3d Dep't 2008). F. Counterclaims his In opposition to Frye's request for relief, Lagerstrom repeated the allegations that formed the basis of the coun terc 1 aims See ECF No. these that 214 dismissed that on May 30, have at a 1 ready 11-14. been counterclaims, changes Lagerstrom pointed 93 (verdict at Court. support to the of fact See ECF No. 94-95 225 at 13-91 (certificate of None of the new evidence presented by Lagerstrom our 12 3 sheet), conclusion that "he has connection between [this prosecution] 214 this 2018 he was acquitted of all charges in a trial testimony), disposition) by In purported additional against him in Queens Criminal Court. (trial dismissed The n.5. Court rejects not p laus ibl y al 1 eged any and Frye . Lagerstrom' s ECF No. fl invitation to revisit our prior decision dismissing his counterclaims. III. CONCLUSION Lagerstrom copyright 1n destroy all is permanently "Homeless." copies of all enJoined Lagerstrom "Homeless" is from infringing ordered footage to Frye's forthwith in his possession Lagerstrom had been arraigned on charges under N.Y.P.L. 120.00 (third degree assault), N.Y.P.L. 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment), N.Y.P.L. 130.52 (forc::.b:e c.ouc:h1ng), N.Y.P.L. 130.55 (th.::.rd degree sexual assault), and N.Y.P.L. 240.26 (second degree verbal harassment). 18 or control. copyright damages under 17 The Court infringement for breach of U.S.C. § awards under $10,000 17 contract, 505. The in statutory damages U.S.C. § 504(c), and $21,450 Clerk of $1,921.98 in attorney's Court is for in fees respectfully instructed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 220, enter judgment in favor of plaintiff, and close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 2 7 , 2018 L~wuij NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 Attorney for Plaintiff Danny J1m1n1an, Esq. J1m1nian Law PLLC Defendant (prose) BenJamin F Lagerstrom Copies of the foregoing Memorandum and Order have been mailed on this date to the following: Benjamin F. Lagerstrom 529 W. 29th Street PHO New York, NY 10001 Benjamin F. Lagerstrom 201 W. 92nd Street Apt. New York, NY 10025 6B 20
]]>
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.
