District Judge Found Suit Meritless And An Attempt To Stifle Political Speech.
17 U.S.C. § 505 is a section allowing a district judge to discretionarily award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in a copyright infringement case. That section can be a powerful incentive to a plaintiff to make sure it brings a meritorious suit, as the City of Inglewood learned in City of Inglewood v. Teixeira, Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Doc. No. 48 Oct. 8, 2015).
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald (C.D. Cal.) found that City of Inglewood could not claim copyright infringement against Mr. Teixeira, who used video clips of city council meetings to criticize Mayor James Butts. Inglewood’s copyright infringement suit was found to lack merit, because the video clips could not be copyrighted and fair use was a complete defense under the circumstances. Mr. Teixeira, whose attorneys handled the case pro bono, then moved to recover $135,121 in fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
The district court agreed fees/costs were in order, awarding $117,741 in fees and costs in an October 8, 2015 order, linked here. Mr. Teixeira prevailed, with the district court labeling the suit meritless and an attempt to stifle political speech. The district judge rejected the notion that taking the case on pro bono divested defendant of his right to seek fees. (Legal Voice v. Stormans, Inc., 757 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2014).) District Judge Fitzgerald found that rates of $155 – $645 for paralegal to partners were reasonable in nature. Finally, he did cut 45 hours for work on a winning motion to dismiss as excessive, observing “[t]he City cannot be found to pay for a Cadillac if a Chevy would have sufficed.”
Louis-Joseph Chevrolet (1878-1941), founder of Chevrolet Motor Company, in Sunbeam racecar. c1915 – 1920. Library of Congress.