Yates v. Adams et al
Filing
84
Order by Judge James Donato granting 76 Motion for Attorney Fees. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PETER YATES,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 15-cv-04912-JD
ORDER RE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS
v.
DAVID B. ADAMS, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 76
Defendants.
In this copyright infringement action, defendants have requested an award of attorney’s
13
fees and costs in the amount of $148,235.25 under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 505. Dkt. Nos.
14
76, 78. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or objected to any of the requested fees or costs. The
15
motion is granted.
16
The Copyright Act provides for the discretionary award of “a reasonable attorney’s fee to
17
the prevailing party as part of the costs” in any civil action brought under it. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
18
Under this section, courts are granted “wide latitude to award attorney’s fees [to the prevailing
19
party] based on the totality of circumstances in a case.” Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136
20
S.Ct. 1979, 1985 (2016). There is no precise rule or formula for making fee determinations under
21
§ 505. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 518 (1994).
22
“Fees are proper under this statute when either successful prosecution or successful
23
defense of the action furthers the purposes of the Copyright Act.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
24
488 F.3d 1102, 1120 (9th Cir. 2007). The awarding of fees is a matter of discretion for the district
25
court, and in exercising that discretion, the Court is to consult a non-exclusive list of factors. Id.
26
These include “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and in
27
the legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance
28
considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Id.
1
Consideration of these factors amply supports the awarding of fees and costs to defendants
2
in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 74 (order granting defendants’ summary judgment motion).
3
Defendants in their fee motion have also provided sufficient material to evidence and support the
4
hours billed and costs charged, as well as to show the reasonableness of the attorneys’ rates. See
5
Dkt. No. 76-3 through Dkt. No. 76-14.
6
The Court consequently grants defendants’ motion and awards them $148,235.25 of
7
attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C § 505. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the fees and costs as
8
soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days from the date of this order.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2017
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?