throbber
Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 21-cv-21698-GAYLES/TORRES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATHOS OVERSEAS LIMITED CORP.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC,
`
`GOOGLE, LLC.,
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`___________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants YouTube, Inc., YouTube LLC, and
`
`Google, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Bill of Costs (“Motion for Costs”), [ECF No. 191], and
`
`Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion for Fees”), [ECF No. 196]. The action was referred to Chief
`
`Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial,
`
`non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No.
`
`155]. On May 2, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motions for Fees and
`
`Motion for Costs be granted in part and denied in part. (the “Report”). [ECF No. 206].1 Although
`
`Judge Torres found that YouTube was entitled to fees related to Plaintiff’s FDUTPA claim
`
`(“FDUTPA fees”), he ordered YouTube to file a supplemental motion addressing the amount of
`
`fees sought. Id. Defendants timely filed their objections to the Report on May 16, 2024
`
`(“Objections”). [ECF No. 207]. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report, but it did file a
`
`
`1 In his Report, Judge Torres denied Plaintiff’s request that the Court defer ruling on the Motion pending its appeal
`to the Eleventh Circuit.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 2 of 3
`
`response to Defendants’ Objections. [ECF No. 209]. On May 22, 2024, parties filed a Joint
`
`Stipulation wherein they resolved the amount of fees YouTube is entitled to in connection with
`
`Plaintiff’s FDUPTA claim. [ECF No. 202].2 Therefore the only portions of the Report that are
`
`objected to are those pertaining to YouTube’s fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act
`
`(“Copyright Act Fees”).
`
`A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
`
`recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which
`
`objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings
`
`that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
`
`also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
`
`objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
`
`Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
`
`208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
`
`In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request to defer
`
`ruling on the Motions, grant the Motion for Fees as to YouTube’s FDUPTA fees, deny the Motion
`
`for Fees as to YouTube’s Copyright Act fees, and grant the Motion for Costs. Upon de novo
`
`review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the
`
`Motions should be granted in part and denied in part.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
`
`(1)
`
` Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 206], is ADOPTED in
`
`full;
`
`
`2 Therefore, Judge Torres’s directive to the Parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the amount of FDUPTA
`fees YouTube is entitled to is now moot.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-21698-DPG Document 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2024 Page 3 of 3
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
` Defendants’ Motion for Costs [ECF No. 191] is GRANTED.
`
`Defendants shall be awarded $27,212.20 in costs.
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Fees [ECF No. 196] is GRANTED in part and DENIED
`
`in part:
`
`a. Defendants’ motion for fees under FDUPTA is GRANTED. YouTube shall be
`
`awarded $64,806 in attorneys’ fees under FDUPTA.
`
`b. Defendants’ motion for fees under the Copyright Act is DENIED.
`
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of July, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`DARRIN P. GAYLES
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket