Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.164.181.226
193 F. Supp. 3d 1174
D. Or.2016Background
- Plaintiff Countryman Nevada sued an anonymous defendant identified by an IP address for copyright infringement of the motion picture The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman (NDCC).
- ISP disclosure identified the subscriber (defendant’s wife); she initially ignored demand letters, then cooperated and her attorney (defendant’s aunt) entered an appearance.
- Defendant’s counsel investigated, found NDCC on the wife’s computer, and admitted liability; defendant filed an answer admitting the material allegations.
- Despite admissions and settlement negotiations (offers ranging from $750 statutory damages plus injunction to higher settlement demands), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, formally served process, and moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The Court granted judgment for Plaintiff (statutory damages $750, injunction, destruction of copies). Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees ($8,767.20) and costs; Defendant sought sanctions/fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- Court denied both fee requests, finding Plaintiff’s counsel litigated in a manner intended to increase costs and fee bases; awarded costs in part ($625).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 | Plaintiff sought a reasonable fee ($8,767.20) as prevailing party | Defendant argued fees should be limited to pre-July‑2 work ($2,896) because counsel multiplied proceedings thereafter | Denied: court exercised Fogerty discretion and refused fees due to plaintiff counsel's conduct that increased costs and appeared aimed at creating a fee claim |
| Whether attorney sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Plaintiff’s counsel are warranted | Plaintiff opposed sanctions | Defendant sought $5,040 under § 1927 for unreasonable, vexatious multiplication of proceedings | Denied: court declined § 1927 sanctions, finding denial of fee award under § 505 sufficient deterrence |
| Whether plaintiff’s billed costs are recoverable | Plaintiff sought $684 in costs (including $59 process service) | Defendant objected to $114 and argued some service was unnecessary | Granted in part: awarded costs of $625; denied $59 for commercial process server for service of the First Amended Complaint |
| Effect of settlement conduct and procedural choices on fee award | Plaintiff relied on prevailing-party status and statutory discretion to request fees | Defendant relied on plaintiff counsel’s refusal to reasonably accommodate scheduling, formal service despite waiver, and unnecessary motion practice | Court weighed Fogerty factors (frivolousness, motivation, objective reasonableness, deterrence) and denied fees based on totality of circumstances and misconduct in litigation conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (§ 505 grants courts discretion to award fees; nonexclusive Fogerty factors guide the analysis)
- Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of plaintiff fees where district court applied proper factors)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) (reaffirming broad § 505 discretion and instructing courts to consider totality of circumstances when awarding fees)