Attorney Fees Awarded In First Impression

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Contact

[co-author: Victoria Boyko]

In Ryan v. Editions Limited West Inc., 2015 DJDAR 5455, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit decided an important issue of first impression: does the Copyright Act of 1976 preclude enforcement of a contractual attorney fee provision in copyright based litigation?

An artist sued Editions Limited West Inc. (ELW), an artwork publisher, alleging claims for contributory copyright infringement. The artist ultimately prevailed in her copyright claim after protracted litigation. The district court awarded her attorney fees pursuant to the fee‑shifting provision of the parties’ publishing agreement.

The artist requested $328,078.00 in fees plus interest and costs. The district court awarded her only $51,364.00 by allocating fees to earlier phases of the litigation. The trial court reasoned that these activities were not directly attributable to prosecution of the copyright claim.

The Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court noted that the Copyright Act preempts all state law claims that fall within the general scope of copyright. However, prior precedent has established that the Copyright Act does not preempt state law allowing for a “fee‑shifting provision.” The court specifically pointed to CCP § 1021, which permits contractual fee‑shifting under California law. Since the fee‑shifting provision under CCP § 1021 was not in conflict with the Copyright Act, and because the defendant was on actual notice of the artist’s rights with respect to her artwork, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court properly awarded the artist attorney fees.

The Ninth Circuit went on to find that the trial court’s reduction in fees was not appropriate for lack of documentation. Although a district court has the authority to reduce the amount requested, it must provide “an adequate explanation” for its fee calculation. The district court abused its discretion in failing to provide an adequate explanation given the great disparity between the artist’s requested fees and the ultimate award.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Contact
more
less

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide