Spooner v. EEN, INC., 644 F.3d 62

Spooner sued EEN, Dan Egan, and Sugarloaf for unauthorized use of Spooner’s copyrighted song in a Sugarloaf ad.
Plaintiff obtained injunctive relief and statutory damages ($40,000) after bench trial; Sugarloaf settlement reduced potential recovery to $10,000 post-off-set.
Egan and EEN offered $10,000 (Rule 68 offer) and later $20,000 in non-Rule 68 settlement negotiations; both offers were rejected by Spooner.
The district court awarded Spooner $98,745.80 in attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, following the lodestar method with reductions.
Defendants challenged the fee award as excessive and argued time should be limited to work before November 17, 2008; jurisdictional issues were resolved by an action on costs.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court acted within its discretion and did not abuse the fee determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding fees?	Spooner argues the lodestar was properly calculated and adequately supported by time records and market rates.	EEN contends the fee amount is excessive and not compensable; hours or rates are inflated.	No abuse of discretion; lodestar properly calculated and supported; award sustained.
Should the fee award have been limited to work pre-dating the November 17, 2008 settlement rejection?	Spooner contends no Rule 68 limitation applies to non-Rule 68 settlement offers; middleware damages not controlling.	EEN argues rejection of a settlement offer should cap fees after that date under applicable authorities.	No, Rule 68 framework does not apply to the non-68 settlement; no pre-Offer cutoff required.
Is the fee award appealable given unresolved costs earlier in the case?	Spooner maintains fee order is final as part of costs and reviewable upon final judgment.	EEN argued lack of finality since costs were unresolved.	Jurisdiction cured; the fee award became final and appealable.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1994) (fee shifting and considerations for awards under § 505)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method; hours reasonable; adjustments permitted)
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (costs and offers of judgment; finality considerations)
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1986) (no strict proportionality between fees and damages)
Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001) (lodestar framework and evidence requirements)
Latin American Music Co. v. American Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 642 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to district courts in fee decisions; factors acknowledged)