Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Kiflit

Filing 16

ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Application for Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 10/10/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC.; AMAZEMENT
MUSIC; HIP CITY MUSIC, INC.; HIFROST
PUBLISHING; WARNER-TAMERLANE
PUBLISHING CORP.; COREY FOWLER;
CAHRON CHILDS; CHANTI GLEE;
RUNWAY STAR MUSIC PUBLISHING,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TEDROS KIFLIT, individual and doing business )
as ARSIMONA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00856-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES

On July 10, 2012, Plaintiffs moved this Court for entry of default judgment against
20
Defendant. ECF No. 11. As part of this motion, Plaintiffs requested $3,425.00 in attorney’s fees
21
pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act.
22
On October 2, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, but did not
23
award Plaintiffs attorney’s fees because Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide sufficient
24
documentation in support of the requested award. ECF No. 13. To recover reasonable attorney’s
25
fees, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a declaration and supporting documentation justifying
26
the specific hourly rates no later than October 5, 2012. ECF No. 13 at 8. Plaintiffs submitted the
27
required supplemental documentation on October 4, 2012. See Supplemental Decl. Karen S. Frank
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00856-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

1

Supp. Pf’s Appl. Att’y’s Fees (Supp. Frank Decl.), ECF No. 14. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’

2

supplemental declaration and exhibits, the Court finds that the requested award for attorney’s fees

3

is reasonable.

4

Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants courts discretion to award full reimbursement of

5

costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a copyright action. 17 U.S.C. § 505.

6

Here, Plaintiffs have succeeded in the litigation, their claims were not frivolous or objectively

7

unreasonable, their motivation was to protect the rights of the publishers and writers affiliated with

8

BMI, and an award of these fees will promote the protection of copyrights and further the goal of

9

deterrence. See Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear, 85 F.3d 1424, 1432 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]n

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

considering motions for attorney’s fees under § 505 of the Copyright Act, the district court should

11

‘seek to promote the Copyright Act’s objectives’ . . . . [and] consider [factors] including ‘the

12

degree of success obtained; frivolousness; motivation; objective unreasonableness . . . and the

13

need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.’”)

14

(internal citations omitted). Moreover, based on the Supplemental Frank Declaration, the Court

15

believes that specific hourly rates charged by Plaintiffs’ counsel are reasonable in light of each

16

attorney’s qualifications and level of legal experience. See Supplemental Frank Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. In

17

addition, the hours billed for the specific tasks are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court hereby

18

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for $3,425.00 in attorney’s fees.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: October 10, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00856-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES