Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. et al v. Warrick

Filing 116

ORDER denying 111 Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge John L. Kane on 05/10/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00660-JLK-KMT
ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, INC., and
MARY LIPPITT
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD W. WARRICK,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (Doc. 111)
Kane, J.
This matter is before me on Defendant Donald Warrick’s Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs (Doc. 111). Defendant, as the prevailing party on Plaintiff’s copyright and state law unfair
competition claims, seeks an award of his reasonable attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102. I deny the Motion.
Section 505 of the federal Copyright Act provides that the court, “in its discretion,” may
allow the recovery of “full costs by or against any party other than the United States” and “may
also award a reasonable attorney’s [sic] fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” The
Colorado attorney fee statute, requires the Court to award reasonable attorney fees against any
attorney or party who has brought or defended a civil action that the court “determines lacked
substantial justification.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102. An action “lacks substantial
justification” when it is substantially frivolous, groundless, or vexatious. § 13-17-102(4).
I decline the invitation under either federal or state statute to shift the traditional
1

obligation under the “American Rule” that litigants pay their own attorney fees, win or lose,
which is “deeply rooted in our history.” Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S.
240, 271 (1975). The Court’s rulings in Defendant’s favor did nothing one way or the other to
advance the public policies inherent in copyright law and Plaintiff’s state law claims were not
sufficiently frivolous, groundless, or vexatious to justify an order requiring her to pay
Defendant’s attorney fees.
Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 111) is DENIED. Defendant was and
remains entitled to his costs as the prevailing party in this litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1).
Dated: May 10, 2012

s/John L. Kane
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2