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)

Download PDF
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?