A-Blake Records, LLC v. Cassidy

Filing 51

OPINION on Attorney's Fees. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)

United States
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
August 24, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-Blake Records, liC,
Plaintiff,
'Versus

Jason William Cassidy,
Defendant.

Civil Action H-I4-3401

Opinion on Attorney' 5 Fees
1.

Introduction.
A record company sued a country singer for copyright infringement and to recover

money owed from album sales. The court dismissed the case with prejudice because the parties
agreed that the claims of the company were without merit. Because the original suit was
baseless, retaliatory, and it promotes the purpose of copyright law, the singer will be awarded
litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees.

2.

Background.
Jason William Cassidy is a country singer. He contracted with A-Blake Records, liC,

to record, sell, and promote his music in exchange for part of the proceeds from his tours,
performances, and album sales. In 2014, Cassidy filled for bankruptcy and his estate rejected
the responsibility of his contract with A-Blake. At the time offiling, he owed A-Blake Records
$700,000.00. A-Blake missed the deadline to dispute the discharge of its claim. It moved for
leave to dispute the discharge asserting that his bad acts justified the payment of the debt. On
October 24,2014, the court deniedA-Blake's request and struck its complaint from the docket
- the bankruptcy court fully discharged its claim. Unhappy with this result, on November 10,
2014, A-Blake sent a letter to Cassidy asserting that it owned the copyright to a laundry list of
his songs and that it was excluding him from reproducing, performing, and publishing them.

On November 20, while representatives from A-Blake were waiting in the wings to
monitor to his set list, Cassidy performed three songs from its asserted repertoire at a local bar.
On November 26, A-Blake sued Cassidy for three claims of willful copyright
infringement when he performed the songs in public. Cassidy moved to dismiss the complaint
because (a) he had performed the songs in a licensed venue,

(b) A-Blake did not then, or ever,

own the rights to the songs, and (c) it did not establish a valid u.s. Copyright Registration for
the songs. He also asked for reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
On January 29, 2015, the court held an initial conference. A-Blake agreed that its
complaint should be dismissed because "the geniuses that were telling me what to plead in this
case because they own the copyright. Essentially, what - we're trying to gain some money back
and see what's happening is the sale of our sound recordings which we allege that Cassidy sell
our CDs at his concerts. He sells them online."I It failed to state a copyright claim supported
by a valid u.s. Copyright Registration.
At this conference the court allowed A-Blake to amend its complaint to include the
contract claim. Despite this court's order, it never filed its amended complaint until the court
again demanded it be filed. The court also ordered Cassidy - who had obtained different counsel
to defend the copyright case - to explain the effect of his bankruptcy plan on his contract with
A-Blake. At this point, A-Blake - who had retained the same counsel in the bankruptcy - knew
that Cassidy had rejected the contract but did not inform the court. Rather, it let the meter keep
running on Cassidy's attorney's fees.
On February 24, the court held another conference. Cassidy told the court that he had
researched the alleged copyright and performance licenses. He admitted that he assigned a
portion of his co-publishing copyright to A-Blake, but it was clear that A-Blake did not own the
material. After discussing that Cassidy purchased the albums from a third-party distributor, the
parties agreed that Cassidy owed nothing to A-Blake for the album sales. A-Blake asked the
court to dismiss the case with prejudice. 2

I Transcript of Proceedings at 5: 8, A-Blake Records, LLC, v.Jason William Cassidy,
I4-cV-340I Oanuary 29,2015), ECF NO.I6.
Transcript of Proceedings at 9:14, A-Blake Records, LLC, v.Jason William Cassidy,
I4-cV-340I (Feburary 24,2015), ECF NO.2S.
2

Before dismissing the case, Cassidy, yet again, asked the court to award attorney's fees
and costs. The court denied the motion. Fourteen-days later, Cassidy timely moved for postjudgment attorney's fees or to amend the final judgment under Rule 59. The court amended
the judgment under Rule 59, awarded attorney's fees, and ordered Cassidy to give the court a
copy of his attorney bill. After several briefs by the parties and a thorough review of the
bankruptcy proceedings, the court vacated its order amending the judgment and awarding
attorney's fees. The court will now award post judgment attorney's fees and costs to Cassidy.

3·

Attornry's fees.
A voluntary dismissal does not deprive this court ofjurisdiction to award attorney's fees

and costs. 3 Because this court had jurisdiction over the copyright claim, it may award attorney's
fees to Cassidy.
The Copyright Act permits a court to award full litigation costs to any party of
copyright litigation and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.4 A prevailing party
is one awarded some relief by the court - the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered. 5
Either the plaintiff or the defendant can prevail. A dismissal with prejudice, even by the parties'
agreement, is a court-ordered change in the legal relationship between the parries. When a case
is dismissed with prejudice the defendant gains the protection from further suits for the same
transaction by the plaintiff. A-Blake' s claims against Cassidy were dismissed with prejudice after
it had admitted that it had no claim for recovery. Undoubtedly, Cassidy prevailed.
The court may award attorney's fees after considering several - albeit nonexclusive factors: (a) the frivolousness of the claim, (b) a party's motivation for filing suit, (c) the objective
factual and legal unreasonableness of the claim, and (d) the need to further the interests of the

.
copynghtact. 6

th

3

See also Yesh Music 'V. Lakewood Church, 727 F'3d 356,363 (5 Cir. 2013)'

5

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc.

'V.

W. Virgina Dep't of Health & Human Res.,

532 U.S. 598,603 (2001).
6

Fogerry 'V. Fantary, Inc. 510 U.S. 517, 536 (1994)'

A-Blake says that it should not have to pay Cassidy's fees because it was not sanctioned
for discovery violations and it did not file multiple non-meritorious motions. It is confused. A
court may award fees if the examination of the particular procedural and substantive aspects of
the case warrants it? This case warrants it.
A-Blake knew that it did not own the right to exclude Cassidy from performing his
songs - it still filed suit. A-Blake conceded that its original complaint was legally deficient. The
court could have granted Cassidy's motion to dismiss, but A-Blake persisted that it had a valid
claim for recovery. When the court allowed it to amend its complaint to an accounting
question, it knew it had no right to recover its previously discharged debt from Cassidy - it
insisted the case go forward.
Its amended complaint was deficient. A-Blake agreed to dismiss the case after Cassidy
exposed the baselessness of its claims on the record - after Cassidy told the court what A-Blake
knew before it chose to file suit.
A-Blake filed this suit because Cassidy's estate rejected its contract and A-Blake missed
the deadline to object. The court understands that A-Blake is unhappy and believes it is owed
$700,000.00 from Cassidy. This does not give A-Blake permission to be mean spirited, to use
this court as a means for retaliation, or to force Cassidy to pay to defend himself against claims

it knows to be without merit.
Copyright law serves the purpose of enriching the general public by protecting the
creative and those that sponsor them, and through protecting access to creative works. It
protects the infringed but provides ample defenses for alleged infringers. Before other can be
excluded, a party must establish that it owns the copyright. Without this, creativity can be
quashed and the public's access to creative works minimged by the mere threat of even
unsubstantiated litigation. In this case, if Cassidy would have coward to A-Blake's assertions,
his songs would not be performed and his music would go unsold to the public. His successful
defense increased the public's exposure to his work. He gets to keep playing his songs, his way,
in public places and projected through his fan's music players - many of whom will have the
opportunity to build on his creativity.
A-Blake will pay Cassidy's litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

7

Compaq Computer Corp.

't!.

Ergonome, Inc. 387 F.3d 403,412 (5th Cir.2oo4)'

5.

Conclusion.
Jason Cassidy takes $15,369.50 from A-Blake in attorneys fees.

Signed on August 23, 2016, at Houston, Texas.

=~

r;R1t-----

Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge

-5-