Latin American Music, et al v. Archdiocese of SJ, et al, No. 3:1996cv02312 - Document 614 (D.P.R. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 607 MOTION for Reconsideration re 602 Opinion and Order, filed by Latin American Music Company, Inc.; DENYING AS MOOT 610 MOTION to Strike, filed by American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). We ORDER Plaintif f to SHOW CAUSE, on or before April 23, 2010, as to why we should not amend, sua sponte, our Opinion and Order of March 17, 2010 (Docket No. 602 ) to reflect the reasoning stated in our expanded order and to adjust accordingly the amount payable by Plaintiff to ASCAP. Show Cause Response due by 4/23/2010.Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 4/7/2010.(mrj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Latin American Music, et al v. Archdiocese of SJ, et al 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO LATIN AMERICAN MUSIC CO., INC., et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 8 9 10 Doc. 614 Civil No. 96-2312 (JAF) ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, et al., Defendants. 11 ORDER 12 On March 17, 2010, we issued an Opinion and Order requiring Plaintiff Latin American 13 Music Co., Inc., to pay the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers 14 (“ASCAP”) $54,874.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,898.93 in costs. (Docket No. 602.) On 15 March 29, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 16 (Docket No. 607),1 which ASCAP opposes (Docket No. 609). Plaintiff argues that ASCAP’s 17 application for attorney’s fees for services rendered between August 17, 2005, and February 29, 18 2008, is duplicative because ASCAP previously recouped such fees. (Docket No. 607.) 19 However, the documents cited by Plaintiff relate to recoupment by other parties in this case and 1 Under Rule 59(e), any party may move the court to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight days of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). Dockets.Justia.com Civil No. 96-2312 (JAF) -2- 1 to a prior request by ASCAP predating the period relevant to the instant request. (See id.) 2 Plaintiff’s brief otherwise fails to demonstrate a manifest error of law or the existence of newly- 3 discovered evidence. (See id.) We, therefore, reject this attempt to avoid payment. 4 However, we take this opportunity to amend the Opinion and Order under Rule 59(e),2 5 with respect to (1) the reduction in attorney’s fees for services performed by Diego A. Ramos, 6 ASCAP’s counsel; and (2) several expenses claimed as costs by ASCAP: $577.80 in airfare for 7 Ramos (Docket No. 573-9) and $956.97 in telephone charges, messenger services, electronic 8 legal research, and postage (see Docket No. 573-6). 9 First, we reduced the fees claimed for Ramos’ services by ten percent because of, inter 10 alia, the high percentage of tasks performed by this partner as compared with those performed 11 by lower-priced associates. (Docket No. 602.) The First Circuit has explained that such 12 percentage calculations alone cannot support a reduction of fees. Boston & Me. Corp. v. 13 Moore, 776 F.2d 2, 9 (1st Cir. 1985). “The appropriate question is whether the talents of a 14 higher-priced attorney with special skills were fully engaged . . . .” Id. The First Circuit 15 disfavors the court’s second-guessing a firm’s allocation of tasks where the prevailing party was 16 satisfied with counsel’s performance. Id. at 10. 2 The First Circuit has not decided whether amendments under Rule 59(e) may be made sua sponte but has admonished district courts to afford parties an opportunity to be heard. Dr. José S. Belaval, Inc. v. Pérez-Perdomo, 465 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing authorities that suggest sua-sponte amendments are permissible). Civil No. 96-2312 (JAF) -3- 1 Given the general tenor of First Circuit case law on this point, we amend our Opinion 2 and Order to strike the ten-percent reduction of Ramos’ requested fees. Accordingly, the 3 adjusted amount of attorney’s fees for Fiddler González & Rodríguez is $48,645.3 Added to the 4 $11,094 we previously allowed for work performed by Holland & Knight (Docket No. 602), this 5 results in $59,739 in attorney’s fees for ASCAP. 6 Second, with respect to the expenditures claimed by ASCAP as costs, ASCAP clarified 7 that it claimed these expenses as “out-of-pocket” expenditures recoverable as attorney’s fees 8 under 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Docket No. 573-1.) We agree that ASCAP could recover these out-of- 9 pocket expenses as part of attorney’s fees. See InvesSys, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Cos.,, 369 F.3d 10 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2004); see also Boston & Me. Corp., 776 F.2d at 11 (noting that expenses must 11 be both reasonable and necessary). However, we find that the airfare claimed for Ramos was 12 not reasonably necessary to the litigation because Ramos incurred this expense to care for an 13 ailing relative rather than to work for ASCAP (Docket No. 573-1). See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 14 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983) (holding that court has equitable discretion in determining 15 reasonableness of fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1988); see also Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 16 534 (1994) (adopting Hensley for analysis under 17 U.S.C. § 505). Furthermore, we note that 17 ASCAP has failed to provide documentary evidence in support of its other claims for out-of- 18 pocket expenses. (See Docket No. 573-4.) Accordingly, we also reject ASCAP’s claim for 3 Accounting for the other reductions we previously imposed (Docket No. 602), the resulting calculation of attorney’s fees for Fiddler González & Rodríguez is as follows: $54,050 - 0.1 x $54,050 = $48,645. Civil No. 96-2312 (JAF) -4- 1 these expenditures. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 (holding that courts may reduce fees for 2 deficiencies in documentation). Thus, we need not make further alterations to our previous 3 calculations of attorney’s fees and taxable costs. 4 Accordingly, adding the adjusted amount for attorney’s fees to the amount we previously 5 allowed as costs, the total amount payable by Plaintiff to ASCAP is $61,637.93. Before we 6 amend our Opinion and Order, however, we permit Plaintiff an opportunity to present its 7 arguments against the proposed adjustment. See Dr. Jose S. Belaval, Inc., 465 F.3d at 37. 8 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 9 (Docket No. 607) and DENY as MOOT ASCAP’s motion to strike (Docket No. 610). We 10 ORDER Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, on or before April 23, 2010, as to why we should not 11 amend, sua sponte, our Opinion and Order of March 17, 2010 (Docket No. 602) to reflect the 12 reasoning stated herein and to adjust accordingly the amount payable by Plaintiff to ASCAP. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 7 th day of April, 2010. 15 16 17 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge
]]>
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.
