Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baxter Bailey & Associates v. Powers & Stinson, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

October 17, 2017

BAXTER BAILEY & ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff,
v.
POWERS & STINSON, INC., THE TRANSPORTATION FIRM, and DONALD MCKNATT, Defendants.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Motion for Attorney's Fees (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Baxter Bailey & Associates, Inc. on April 3, 2017. (ECF No. 84; see also ECF No. 84-1.) Defendants Powers & Stinson, Inc., The Transportation Firm, and Donald McKnatt responded on April 9, 2017. (ECF No. 85.)

         For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The relevant facts are stated more fully in Section I of the Court's Order dated July 5, 2016 (the “July 2016 Order”). Baxter Bailey & Assocs., Inc. v. Powers & Stinson, Inc., No. 14-3012, 2016 WL 7497581, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. July 5, 2016). This section addresses proceedings since the July 2016 Order.

         In the July 2016 Order, the Court denied motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff and Defendants. (Id. at *6.) A jury trial was held on July 25 and 26, 2016. (Minute Entry, ECF No. 73; Minute Entry, ECF No. 75.) The jury considered two claims: (1) trademark dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (c); and (2) violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1). (ECF No. 76; see also ECF No. 77.) The jury found for Defendants on the trademark-dilution claim, and for Plaintiff on the ACPA claim. (See ECF No. 76 at 1, 3.)[1]

         Before trial, Plaintiff elected “to accept statutory damages should it prevail at trial.” (ECF No. 71.) Under the ACPA, those damages were between $1, 000.00 and $100, 000.00, and for the jury to determine. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d). The jury awarded Plaintiff $1, 000.00. (ECF No. 76 at 4.)

         On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees. (ECF No. 81; see also ECF No. 81-1.) Defendants responded on August 18, 2016. (ECF No. 82.) On March 20, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees without prejudice. (ECF No. 83.) The Court instructed Plaintiff that, if it wished “to seek costs and fees in this case, it must follow the procedures set forth in Rule 54(d) and Local Rule 54.1.” (Id. at 504.) The Court also said that, “[t]o the extent those rules have deadlines based on the date of entry of judgment or the date of termination of the case . . . the date of this Order shall be treated as the date of the entry of judgment and the date the case terminated.” (Id.)

         On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Attorney's Fees. (ECF No. 84; see also ECF No. 84-1.) Defendants responded on April 9, 2017. (ECF No. 85.)

         II. STANDARDS

         The jury found that Defendants had violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1). 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) states that, “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

         Rule 54(d)(2)(B)[2] governs motions for attorney's fees:

         Unless a statute or a court order provides otherwise, the motion must:

(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.