Frost-Tsuji Architects brought this action against Highway Inn, Inc., a former client, and Hoʻola Mau, LLC, J. Kadowaki, Inc., Bargreen Ellingson, Inc., Bryce E. Uyehara, A.I.A., Inc., Palekana Permits, LLC, and Iwamoto & Associates, LLC (collectively, “Highway Inn”), alleging that Highway Inn (1) infringed Frost-Tsuji’s copyright in architectural plans for a new restaurant, and (2) removed Frost-Tsuji’s copyright management information (“CMI”) from the plans in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Highway Inn. The district court then denied Frost-Tsuji’s motions for reconsideration of the summary judgment orders. The court awarded Highway Inn attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating the DMCA claim and in litigating the copyright *4 infringement claim after the district court’s August 26, 2014 summary judgment order.

We review de novo the order granting summary judgment on Frost-Tsuji’s copyright infringement claim, Wolfe v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 749 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered August 26, 2014.

We review de novo the order granting summary judgment on Frost-Tsuji’s CMI removal claim under the DMCA, id. , and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered November 7, 2014.

We review for abuse of discretion the order denying Frost-Tsuji’s motion for reconsideration of the November 7, 2014 summary judgment order, 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold , 179 F.3d 656, 661 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered January 21, 2015.

We review for abuse of discretion the order denying Frost-Tsuji’s motion for reconsideration of the August 26, 2014 summary judgment order, id. , and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered January 23, 2015.

We review for abuse of discretion the order awarding Highway Inn attorneys’ fees and costs under the Copyright Act, Maljack Productions, Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp. , 81 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 1996), and under the DMCA, see Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp. , 384 F.3d 700, 719 (9th *5 Cir. 2004), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order entered March 30, 2015.

AFFIRMED.

Each party shall bear its own costs and fees on appeal.