Asset Vision, LLC et al v. Fielding et al

Filing 113

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Brad Hall & Associates, Inc.'s (BH&A) Motion for Entry of Judgment in Favor of Brad Hall & associates, Inc. 109 DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ASSET VISION, LLC, and Idaho limited
liability company, and DEER VALLEY
TRUICKING INC., an Idaho corporation,

Case No. 4:13-cv-00288-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

PlaintiffS,
v.
CREG FIELDING, an individual, BRAD
HALL, an individual, COLE HALL, an
individual, and BRAD HALL &
ASSOCIATES INC., and Idaho
corporation,
DefendantS.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Brad Hall & Associates, Inc.’s (“BH&A”) Motion for
Entry of Judgment in Favor of Brad Hall & Associates, Inc. (Dkt. 109). The Court has
determined that oral argument would not significantly assist the decisional process and
will therefore consider the matters without a hearing. For the reasons explained below,
the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2013, plaintiffs Asset Vision and Deer Valley Trucking
(“DVT”) filed a Second Amended Complaint against BH&A and Creg Fielding. The
complaint contained six claims: (1) copyright infringement against both defendants; (2)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

contributory copyright infringement against both defendants; (3) violation of Idaho Trade
Secrets Act against both defendants; (4) Idaho Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act
against both defendants; (5) breach of contract against only Fielding; and (6) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against only Fielding. (Dkt. 55). The first four
claims were asserted on behalf of only Asset Vision, while the last two claims were
asserted on behalf of both plaintiffs. (Dkt. 55).
On June 27, 2014, both plaintiffs and defendant BH&A filed a Stipulation for
Dismissal with Prejudice. (Dkt. 85). The parties agreed to the dismissal of all claims
against BH&A. The fact that both plaintiffs joined in the stipulation does not change the
fact that the only claims against BH&A in the Second Amended Complaint were on
behalf of only Asset Vision, not DVT. In the stipulation, the parties also agreed that
BH&A could move for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkt. 85). On June 30, 2014, the Court
granted the stipulation. (Dkt. 86).
On July 30, 2014, BH&A filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The motion
was brought and argued pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act.
On August 8, 2014, both plaintiffs and defendant Fielding filed a Joint Motion for
Entry of Final Judgment by Consent. (Dkt. 91). The parties asked the Court to enter a
Consent Judgment which included, among other statements, that the parties would bear
their own costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. (Dkt. 91). The Court entered
the Consent Judgment on August 15, 2014. (Dkt. 93).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

On December 16, 2014, the Court granted BH&A’s motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs and awarded BH&A $86,154.03 in fees and costs against only Asset Vision. BH&A
now asks the Court to order that Asset Vision and DVT be jointly and severally liable for
these fees and costs.
ANALYSIS
Section 505 of the Copyright Act gives courts discretion to “allow the recovery of
full costs” and “reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. The
Ninth Circuit allows for recovery in a Copyright Act case of “attorney’s fees incurred in
defending against that one claim or any ‘related claims.’” Entertainment Research
Group, Inc. v Genesis Creative Group, Inc, 122 F.3d 1211, 1230 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434–35 (1983)). Under this standard, the Court
awarded fees and costs to BH&A against Asset Vision, but not against DVT.
DVT asserted no claims – copyright, copyright-related, or otherwise – against
BH&A. DVT asserted only the breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims against Fielding. Those claims against Fielding were settled
through the Consent Judgment, where the parties specifically agreed that they would bear
their own costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. Under these circumstances,
there is no authority to award BH&A attorneys’ fees and costs against DVT – DVT filed
no claims against BH&A and it settled its claims against Fielding with each party bearing
its own costs and fees. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
ORDER

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

IT IS ORDERED:
1. Brad Hall & Associates, Inc.’s (“BH&A”) Motion for Entry of Judgment in
Favor of Brad Hall & associates, Inc. (Dkt. 109) DENIED.

DATED: April 29, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4