Louisiana Contractors Licensing Service, Inc. et al v. American Contractors Exam Services, Inc. et al

Filing 44

RULING granting 40 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 07/10/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA CONTRACTORS LICENSING
SERVICE, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-560-JJB-RLB
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS EXAM
SERVICES, INC.
RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
This matter is before the Court on the defendant American Contractors Exam Services,
Inc.’s Motion (rec. doc. 40) for Attorney Fees. The plaintiff opposes the motion (rec. doc. 42).
On September 11, 2012, the plaintiff Louisiana Contractors Licensing Service, Inc.
commenced this copyright infringement action against the defendant American Contractors
Exam Services, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant reproduced copyrighted exam
questions that the plaintiff used in its business of training contractors for state licensing exams.
Subsequently, on April 7, 2014, the Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and found that any alleged copying in this case was de minimis, and thus, not actionable copying.
Rec. doc. 38. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim
against the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant filed the pending motion for attorney’s fees,
seeking to recover reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act of
1976. Rec. doc. 40.
Section 505 of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides:
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the
recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an
officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also
award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

1

17 U.S.C. § 505. “Unlike such fees in other contexts, those awarded pursuant to § 505 are ‘the
rule rather than the exception and should be awarded routinely.’” Ramirez v. Nichols, 496
F.App’x 383, 386 (quoting McGaughey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 12 F.3d 62, 65
(5th Cir. 1994)). Nonetheless, the prevailing party is not automatically entitled to recover
attorney’s fees. Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Thompson, 512 F.3d 724, 726 (5th Cir. 2008)
(citing Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 (1994); Creations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain,
112 F.3d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1997)). “[A]ttorney’s fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties
only as a matter of the court’s discretion.” Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534. The Supreme Court
provided that courts could consider the following non-exclusive factors in making their
determination: “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.” Id. at 534 n.19 (quoting Lieb v. Topstone
Industries, Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 156 (3d Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts
must apply the factors in a manner that is “faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act and . . .
applied to prevailing plaintiffs and defendants in an evenhanded manner.” Id.
Based on the facts of this case, the Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees to the
defendant is appropriate. First, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to make out an
actionable claim of copyright infringement, as any allegedly unauthorized use by the defendant
amounted to a de minimis infringement. Second, the Court finds that this case was objectively
unreasonable, based on the prevailing de minimis doctrine and the insignificant number of
allegedly copied questions. Moreover, there is at least some evidence that the suit may have been
filed in an attempt to drive the defendant’s out of the Louisiana market, as opposed to an honest
attempt to protect the plaintiff’s copyrights. See rec. doc. 30-3, p. 2. Finally, the Court finds that

2

granting the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees would advance the considerations of
compensation and deterrence, as the award encourages defendants to challenge meritless
copyright claims brought against them as opposed to settling such claims.
Next, the Court must determine the amount of such an award of attorney’s fees. After
reviewing the relevant briefings and the total amount of attorney’s fees, as well as the lack of any
opposition by the plaintiff as to the amount, the Court agrees with the defendant’s reasoning and
awards attorney’s fees in the total amount of $48,259.33. See rec. doc. 40.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS the defendant’s Motion (rec. doc. 40) for Attorney Fees
and awards such fees in the total amount of $48,259.33.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 10, 2014.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3