Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDERED that Nola Spice Design, LLC's 114 Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NOLA SPICE DESIGNS, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-2515

HAYDEL ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a HAYDEL'S BAKERY

SECTION: "J" (2)

Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff Nola Spice Designs, LLC ("Nola
Spice")'s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Rec. Doc.
114) and Defendant Haydel Enterprises, Inc. ("Haydel")'s opposition
thereto (Rec. Doc. 117). Nola Spice's motion was set for hearing on
September 25, 2013, on the briefs. The Court, having considered the
motions and memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable
law, now finds that Plaintiff's motion should be GRANTED.
The Court recently granted summary judgment in favor of Nola
Spice on the parties' claims and counterclaims brought pursuant to
the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.. (Rec. Doc. 105) Thereafter, Nola Spice filed
the instant motion for an award of attorney's fees under the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1117. Nola Spice requests $31,004.65, plus any future costs. The
attorney's fees that have accrued were based on rates ranging from
$135 to $150 per hour for attorney services and $80.00 per hour for
paralegal services. See Pl. Mot., Exh. 17, Rec. Doc. 114-18. Haydel
opposes the award of attorney's fees in its entirety. In the

alternative,

Haydel

argues

that,

if

it

is

determined

that

attorney's fees are merited under one Act and not the other, Nola
Spice is not entitled to the entire amount of fees claimed.
Upon a review of the parties' briefs and the relevant factors
and standards included therein, the Court finds that Nola Spice is
entitled to attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 in the amount of
$31,004.65.

The

Fifth

Circuit

has

clearly

articulated

the

appropriate standard for determining whether to grant an award of
attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505:
The Copyright Act authorizes a court to award reasonable
attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a suit under
the Act. In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517,
534-35 (1994), the Supreme Court held that attorney's
fees should be awarded evenhandedly to both prevailing
plaintiffs and defendants in copyright actions. [...A]n
award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a
copyright action is the rule rather than the exception
and should be awarded routinely. Nevertheless, recovery
of attorney's fees is not automatic. Attorney's fees are
to be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of
the court's discretion. The Supreme Court listed several
non-exclusive factors that a court may consider in
exercising its discretion: frivolousness, motivation,
objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and in
the legal components of the case) and the need in
particular circumstances to advance considerations of
compensation and deterrence.
Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Thompson, 512 F.3d 724, 726 (5th Cir.
2008) (internal citations omitted).
An award of attorney's fees in this matter serves the need to
advance considerations of compensation and deterrence. It appears
that there is a need for deterrence, for it is clear that Haydel
(a) plans, or at least planned, to further use the bead dog mark,
2

(b) firmly believes in the protectability of its marks, and (c) is
willing to engage in expensive litigation to protect itself, as
shown by its spending of over $122,000 in the instant suit.
Moreover, compensating Nola Spice for litigating this matter,
despite its status as a single member limited liability company,
would serve to protect the functions of copyright law. See Randolph
v. Dimension Films, 634 F.Supp. 779, 796 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (noting
that "the Fogerty rule of "evenhandedness" in awarding fees in
copyright

infringement

cases–-in

particular,

the

compensation

factor–-was intended to promote the Copyright Act by ensuring that
parties with limited resources could afford to prosecute or defend
against opponents with plentiful resources.")
Further,

though

a

losing

party's

claims

are

not

always

considered to be objectively unreasonable or frivolous, the Court
is persuaded that Haydel's claims bordered on the unreasonable.
Though there were some similarities in the overall look of the
parties products, the products had some striking differences, most
importantly that one was made of individual beads and the other was
not. Moroever, as to the litigation of this matter as a whole, the
Court finds that, though it was previously determined that Haydel
did not engage in unethical and immoral behavior as is required for
damages

under

the

Louisiana

Unfair

Trade

Practices

Act,

the

standard for attorney's fees under the Copyright Act is not nearly
as stringent, and Haydel's position and behavior in this litigation

3

fell short of reasonable. While the Court agrees that Haydel was
never required to engage in settlement negotiations or give in to
the

desires

of

Nola

Spice,

the

Court

nevertheless

finds

it

persuasive that Haydel often failed to support its position with
admissible evidence, proved to be difficult during discovery, and
eventually

lost

nearly

every

motion-–both

procedural

and

substantive--in this litigation, with the exception of the unfair
trade practices claim. Therefore, considering the deterrent effect,
coupled with the unreasonableness of Haydel's litigation, the Court
finds that an award of attorney's fees is merited. Id.
copyright

infringement

claim

is

objectively

("when a

unreasonable,

deterrence is an important factor.")
As to the amount of the award, Haydel does not dispute the
hourly rate, but rather only suggests that the award given be
directly linked to the claims on which Nola Spice was successful.
Finding that such linking of the award to the exact task performed
is likely impossible and not necessary, and a finding that the
award requested is extremely reasonable, the Court declines to
reduce the award.
Finally, the Court finds that Nola Spice is entitled to costs
associated with this litigation.
Accordingly,
Nola Spice Design, LLC's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees
and Costs (Rec. Doc. 114) is GRANTED.

4

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of September, 2013.

___________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5